The Ultimate Alchemy, Vol 1

Talks on the Atma Pooja Upanishad

Talks given from 15/02/72 pm to 06/06/72 pm

English Discourse series

18 Chapters

Year published:

Original title was simply "Atma Pooja Upanishad"

The Ultimate Alchemy, Vol 1

Chapter #1

Chapter title: The Tradition of the Upanishads and the Secrets of Meditation

15 February 1972 pm in Bombay, India

Archive code: 7202155

ShortTitle: ULTAL101

Audio:

Yes

Video:

No

Length: 111 mins

AUM TASYA NISHCHINTANAM DHYANAM
AUM MEDITATION IS THE CONSTANT CONTEMPLATION OF THAT.

THERE are some points to ponder over before we step into the unknown. The unknown is the message

of the Upanishads. The basic, the most foundational, always remains unknown; that which we know is
always superficial. So some points must be understood before we can go deep into the realm of the
unknown. These three words -- the known, the unknown, and the unknowable -- must be understood first,
because the Upanishads are concerned with the unknown only as a beginning. They end into the
unknowable. The known realm becomes science, the unknown is philosophy and the unknowable belongs to
religion.

Philosophy is the link between the known and the unknown, between science and religion. Philosophy is

totally concerned with the unknown. The moment something becomes known, it becomes part of science; it
remains no more a part of philosophy. So the more science grows, the more philosophy is pushed ahead.
The field that becomes known becomes science, and philosophy is the link between science and religion. So
as science progresses philosophy has to be pushed ahead, because it can only be concerned with the
unknown. But the more philosophy proceeds ahead, the more religion is pushed ahead, because religion is
basically concerned with the unknowable.

The Upanishads begin with the unknown; they end with the unknowable. That's how misunderstanding

arises. Professor Ranade has written a very deep book on the philosophy of the Upanishads, but it remains
only a beginning. It cannot penetrate the deeper valleys of the Upanishadic mystery because it remains
philosophical. The Upanishads begin with philosophy, but that is only a beginning. They end in religion, in
the unknowable. And when I say "unknowable", I mean that which cannot be known.

Whatsoever the effort may be, howsoever we may try, the moment we know something it becomes part

of science; the moment we feel something as unknown it is part of philosophy -- the moment we encounter
the unknowable, only then is it religion. When I say the unknowable, I mean that which cannot be known

but which can be encountered; it can be felt, it can even be lived. You can be face to face with it. It can be
encountered, but still it remains unknowable. Only this much is felt -- that now we are deep in a mystery
which cannot be solved. So before we enter this mystery, some points have to be understood; otherwise
there will be no entrance.

One is: how to listen, because there are different dimensions of listening. You can listen with your

intellect, with your reason. Mm? -- that is one way of listening to a thing: the most common, the most
ordinary and the most shallow -- because with reason you are always either in defense or in attack. With
reason you are always fighting, so whenever someone tries to understand something through reason he is
fighting with the thing. At the most, a very rudimentary understanding is possible, just an acquaintance is
possible. The deeper meaning is bound to be missed because the deeper meaning requires a very
sympathetic listening.

Reason can never listen with sympathy. It listens with a very argumentative background. It can never

listen with love; that is impossible. So listening with reason is good if you are trying to understand
mathematics, if you are trying to understand logic, if you are trying to understand any system which is
totally rational.

If you listen to poetry with reason, then you will be blind. It is as if one is trying to see with one's ears or

hear with one's eyes. You cannot understand poetry through reason. So there is a deeper understanding, the
second type of understanding, which is not through reason but through love, through feeling, through
emotion, through heart.

Reason is always in conflict; reason will not allow anything to pass in easily. Reason must be defeated;

only then can something penetrate. It is an armour around the mind; it is a defense method, a defense
measure. It is alert every moment that nothing should pass without it being aware, and that nothing should
be allowed -- unless reason is defeated. And even when reason is defeated the thing is not going to your
heart, because in defeat you cannot feel sympathetic.

The second dimension of listening is through heart, through feeling. Someone is listening to music; then

no analysis is needed. Of course, if you are a critic, then you will not be able to understand music. You may
be able to understand the mathematics, the meter, the language, everything about music -- but never music
itself; because music cannot be analyzed. It is a whole. It is a totality. If you wait for a single second to
analyze it, you have missed much. It is a flowing totality. Of course, paper music can be analyzed, but never
real music when it is there, playing. So you cannot stand aloof, you cannot be an observer. You have to be a
participant. If you participate, only then do you understand.

So with feeling, the way of understanding is through participation. You cannot be an observer, you

cannot stand outside. You cannot make music an object. You have to flow with it, you have to be deeply in
love with it. There will be moments when you will not be and only music will be there. Those will be the
peaks; those moments will be the moments of music. Then something penetrates to your deeper being. This
is a deeper way of listening, but it is still not the deepest.

The first way is through reason -- rational; the second is through feeling -- emotional; and the third is

through being -- existential. When you listen through your reason, you are listening through one part of your
being. Again, when you listen through your feeling, you are listening through one part of your being. The
third, the deepest, the most authentic dimension of listening, is through your totality -- body, mind, spirit --
as a whole, as a oneness. If you understand this third way of listening, only then will you be able to
penetrate the mystery of the Upanishad.

The traditional term for this third listening is "faith". So we can divide: through reason the method is

doubt; through feeling the method is love, sympathy; through being the method is faith, trust -- because if
we are going into the unknown, how can you doubt? You can doubt the known, but that which is not known
at all -- how can you doubt it?

Doubt becomes valid if it is concerned with the known. With the unknown, doubt is just impossible.

How can you love the unknown? You can love the known. You cannot love the unknown; you cannot create
a relationship with the unknown. Relationship is impossible. You cannot relate with it. You can dissolve
into it -- that is another thing -- but you cannot relate with it. You can surrender to the unknown, but you
cannot relate to it. And surrender is not a relationship. It is not a relationship at all! It is just dissolving the
duality.

So with reason the duality remains: you are in conflict with the other. With love the duality remains: you

are in sympathy with the other. But with being the duality dissolves: you are neither in conflict nor in love;
you are not related at all. This third is known traditionally as faith, trust -- shraddha. As far as the unknown

is concerned, faith is the key.

If someone says, "How can I believe" then he misunderstands, then he misses the very point. Faith is not

belief. Belief is, again, a rational thing. You can believe; you can disbelieve. You can believe because you
have arguments for believing; you can disbelieve because you have arguments for disbelieving. Belief is
never deeper than reason. So theists, atheists, believers, nonbelievers, they all belong to the most shallow
realm. Faith is not belief, because for the unknown there is no reason for or against. You can neither believe
nor disbelieve.

So what remains to be done? You can either be open to it or you can be closed to it. It is not a question

of believing or not believing. It is a question of being open or being closed to it. If you trust, then you open.
If you distrust, then you remain closed. This is just a key. If you want to open to the unknown, then you will
have to be in trust, in faith. If you do not want to be open to it, you can remain closed -- but no one is
missing except you; no one is at a loss except you. You will remain closed like a seed. When I say it I mean
it.

A seed has to break, has to die; only then is the tree born. But the seed has never known the tree. The

dying of the seed can happen only in faith. The tree is unknown, and the seed will never meet the tree. The
seed can remain closed in fear -- in fear of death. Then the seed will remain a seed and will die ultimately,
without being reborn. But if the seed can die in faith that the unknown may be born out of its death. only
then does it open. In a way it dies, in a way it is reborn -- reborn into greater mysteries, reborn into a richer
life. The same is the phenomenon with faith. So it is not belief: never misunderstand it as belief. It is not
feeling. It is deeper than both: it is your totality.

So how to listen with one's totality? With neither reason functioning in antagonism nor feeling

functioning in sympathy, but with the totality of one's being. How can the totality function? Because we
know only functions of the parts, we do not know how the totality functions. We know only parts -- this part
functioning, that part functioning, intellect working, the heart functioning, the legs moving, the eyes seeing.
We know only parts functioning. How does the totality function? The totality functions only in a deep
passivity. Nothing is active; everything is silent. You are not doing anything. You are just here -- just
presence -- and the doors open. Only then will you be able to understand what the Upanishad's message is.
So your simple presence is needed -- no doing on your part, no functioning. That is what is meant by total
functioning -- just your presence.

I must make it more clear, what I mean by "just presence". If you are in love with someone, then there

are moments when you are not doing anything. You are just present by your lover's or beloved's side: just
present, totally silent; you are not even loving each other -- just present. A very strange phenomenon
happens. Ordinarily, our existence is linear. We exist in a line, in a sequence -- "my past, my present, my
future": this is a line. I move on my track, you move on your track. We have our tracks, linear tracks, I
moving on mine, you moving on yours. Really, we never meet. We are parallel lines -- no meeting. Even if
we are crowded there is no meeting, because you are on your track and I am on my track; you belong to
your past, I belong to my past; my present is born out of my past, your present is born out of your past. Your
future will be a causal sequence of your past and present, and mine will be of mine.

So we move on tracks -- linear tracks, one-line tracks., There is no meeting. Only lovers meet because,

suddenly, when you are just present with someone, a different time comes into existence. You both meet in
a single moment, and this moment neither belongs to you nor to your lover. This is something new. This is
neither out of your past nor out of your lover's past. Time moves in a different dimension -- not linear, not
from the past to the future, but one present with another present. And there is a meeting between two
present moments -- a different dimension. This dimension is known as the dimension of eternity, so lovers
have said that one moment of love is eternity unto itself. It never ends. It has no future, it has no past. It is
just present here and now.

This is what I mean when I say that if you can listen not with your past, not with your future, but with

such a totality that in the present moment only your presence remains; if you can listen silently, passively; if
you can just be present here and now; if this very moment is enough -- then a different dimension will open.
And the Upanishadic message can penetrate only in that dimension.

That is what is meant when it is said that the essence of the Upanishads is eternal. It does not mean

permanent. It only means a different dimension of time in which there is no future and no past. So you will
have to move in a different way -- in your inner time. And with that inner change, words begin to take a
different shape and a different significance is born out of them.

We use similar words. Everyone uses the same words, but with a different mind the words have a

different meaning. For example, a doctor asks a patient, "How are you?" and at a casual meeting on the
street, you ask someone, "How are you?" and a lover asks a beloved, "How are you?" -- the words are the
same, but is the meaning the same? When a doctor asks a patient, "How are you?" does it mean the same as
when a lover asks a beloved, "How are you?" A different significance comes into being.

The Upanishads cannot be understood in an ordinary way. That is how scholars miss the whole point,

linguists miss the whole point, pundits miss the whole point. They work with language. with grammar, with
everything that is pertinent, but still they miss. Why do they miss? The missing happens because their inner
time is linear. They are working with their intellect. not with their being. Really, they are working on the
Upanishad: they are not allowing the Upanishad to work upon them. That is what I mean when I say to just
be present: then the Upanishad can work upon you -- and that can be a transformation. That can transport
you to different planes of existence.

So the first thing to remember is how to listen just by your presence. Absorb through your faith and trust

-- drink! Do not fight with reason, do not feel with feeling. Just be one with your being. This is the key --
the first thing.

The second thing is that the Upanishads use words, they have to use them, but they stand for silence.

They talk and they talk continuously, but they talk for silence. The effort is absurd, paradoxical,
contradictory, inconsistent -- but this is how it is possible, this is the only way. Even if I have to provoke
you toward silence, I have to use words. They use words, but they are completely against words and
language; they are not for them. This must be remembered continuously; otherwise it is very easy to be lost
in words.

Words have their own magic, they have their own magnetism., And each word creates a sequence of its

own. Novelists know, poets know. They say sometimes they only begin their novel. When it ends, they
cannot say they have ended it. Really, the words have their own sequence. They begin to be alive in their
own way, and then they go on.

Tolstoy has said somewhere, "I begin, but I never end, and sometimes my own characters say things that

I never wanted to say." They begin to have their own life and they go on their own tracks. They become free
from the author, from the novelist, from the poet. They become as free as children become free from their
parents. They have their own life.

So words have their own logic. Use a word, and you are on a track. And the word will create many

things. The word itself will create many things, and one can be lost. But the Upanishads are not for words.
That is why they use as few as possible. Their message is so telegraphic that not a single word is used
unnecessarily. The Upanishads are the shortest treatises; not a single word is used unnecessarily because
words can create a hypnotic sequence. But words have to be used, so be aware that you are not lost in
words.

Meaning is something different. Even more than meaning -- it would be good to use the word

"significance". The Upanishads use words as signs, as symbols, as indications. They use words to show
something, not to say something. You can say something by your words, you can show something by your
words. When you show something, then the word must be transcended, must be forgotten. Otherwise words
come in the eyes and they distort the whole perception.

We will be using words, but with this caution: go on remembering that not only are meanings meant, but

some indications. Symbolically, the words have been used -- just like a finger pointing to the moon. The
finger is not the moon, but one can cling to the finger and one can say, "My teacher showed me -- this is the
moon!" The finger is not the moon, but the finger can be used to show. The word is never the Truth, but
words can be used to show. So always remember that the finger has to be forgotten. If the finger becomes
more significant and important than the moon, then the whole thing will be perverted.

Remember this second point: words are just indicators to something else which is wordless -- something

which is silent, something which is beyond, something which transcends.

This forgetting that words are not realities has created much confusion. There are thousands and

thousands of commentaries, but they are concerned with words, not with the wordless reality. They go on
discussing. For centuries, millennia, pundits have discussed what this word means and what that word
means. and they have created a large literature. But so much search for meaning -- and totally meaningless!
They have missed the point. The words were never meant to be realities -- only pointers towards something
else totally different from words.

Thirdly: I am not going to comment on the Upanishad, because commentary can only be something

concerned with intellect. Rather, I am going to respond, not comment. Response is a different thing --

altogether different. You whistle in a valley or you sing a song or you play on a bamboo flute, and the
valley echoes. reechoes, reechoes. The valley is not commenting: the valley is responding.

A response is a living thing; a commentary is bound to be dead. A response means that the Upanishad

will be read here -- I will not comment on it; I will just become a valley and give an echo. It will be difficult
to understand it, because even if the echo is authentic you may not be able to get the same sound back. You
may not be able to find out the relevance, because when a valley responds, when it echoes something, that
echo is not just a passive echo -- it is creative. The valley adds much. The nature of the valley adds much. A
different valley will echo differently. That is how things should be. So when I say something, it is not meant
that everyone is bound to say this. This is how my valley echoes it.

I am reminded of Stevens' lines. They look like a Zen poem: "Twenty men crossing a bridge into a

village, are, twenty men crossing twenty bridges into twenty villages." When I read something, my valley
echoes in a certain way; it is not passive. In that echo I am also present. When your valley reechoes it, it will
be a different thing. When I say "a living response", I mean this.

Sometimes it may look absolutely irrelevant, because the valley will give it a shape, a colour of its own.

This is natural. So I say that commentaries are criminal; only responses should be there, no commentaries --
because the commentator begins to feel that whatsoever he is saying is absolutely true. A commentator
begins to feel that other commentators are wrong, and he begins to feel a self-imposed duty to criticize other
commentators, because he feels his commentary can be right only when other's commentaries are wrong.
But that is not the case with a response. Multi-responses are possible, and every response is right if it is
authentic. If it comes from your depths, then it is right. There is no outward criterion of what is right and
what is wrong. If something comes out of you from your depths, if you become one with it, if it vibrates
through your whole being, then it is right. Otherwise, howsoever clever and howsoever logical, it is wrong.

This is going to be a response. And when I say "response", I mean it will be more like poetry and less

like philosophy. It will not be a system. You cannot create systems through responses. Responses are
atomic, fragmentary. They have an inner unity, but to find that inner unity is not so easy. The unity is just
like a mainland and an island: between an island and a mainland there is a unity, but deep down; deep down
in the depths of the sea. the land is one. If that is understood, then no man is an island. Deep down things
are one; the deeper you go, the more you reach to the oneness. So if a response is authentic, then any
response, even the opposite response which may look absolutely contradictory to it, cannot be different.
Deep down there will be a unity.

But one has to go deep, and commentaries are superficial things. So I am not going to give you a

commentary; I will not say what this Upanishad means. I will say only what this Upanishad means in me. I
cannot claim any authority, and those who claim are really immoral. No one can say what this Upanishad
means. All that can be said is what this Upanishad means in me -- how I echo it.

This response can create a responsiveness in you also if you are just present here. Then whatsoever I say

will echo in you also. And if it can echo, then only will you be able to understand it. So just be like a valley,
be in a let-go, so that you can echo freely. Be concerned with yourself being a valley rather than with the
text of the Upanishad, or with what I am saying. Be concerned with yourself being a valley, and all else will
follow. No tension is needed, no strained effort is needed, to understand me. That can become a barrier. Just
relax, just be silent and passive, and let whatsoever happens echo in you. Those vibrations will transport
you to a different perspective, to a different vision.

Lastly, I am not a Hindu, neither am I Mohammedan nor a Christian -- a homeless wanderer. I do not

belong to the tradition of the Upanishads outwardly, so I have no investment in them. When a Hindu
comments, or when a Hindu thinks about the Upanishads, he has investments; when a Mohammedan writes
about the Upanishads, he has anti-investments: they cannot be true and authentic. If one is a Hindu he
cannot be true about the Upanishads; if one is a Mohammedan he cannot be true about the Upanishads. He
is bound to lie. But the deception is so subtle that one may not even be aware.

Man is the only animal who can lie to himself and can live in deceptions. If you are a Hindu and are

thinking about the Upanishads, or a Mohammedan and thinking about the Koran, or a Christian and thinking
about the New Testament, you will never be aware that you cannot be true. Your being a Christian is the
barrier. You cannot be true! One must not belong; only then is the response true. Belonging disturbs,
perverts the mind, distracts and projects things which are not, or denies things which are.

So to me, that is not a problem, and for you also I would suggest that when you are reading the Koran,

listening to the Upanishads or to the Bible, do not be Hindus, Christians and Mohammedans at all -- just
being is enough. You will be able to penetrate deeper. With concepts, with dogmas, you are never open.

And a closed mind can create deceptions of understanding, but can never understand.

So I belong to no one, and if I am responding to this Upanishad it is simply because I have fallen in love

with it. This, one of the shortest Upanishads, "Atma Pooja", is a rare phenomenon. So something about this
rare Upanishad. why I have chosen to talk about it.

Firstly, it is the shortest; it is just seedlike -- potent, pregnant, with much in it. Every word is a seed with

infinite possibilities. So you can echo it and reecho it infinitely. And the more you ponder over it, the more
you allow it to go in, the more newer significances will be revealed. These seedlike words show that they
were found in deep silence. Really, this looks strange, but this is a fact. If you have less to say, you will say
more. If you really have something to say, you can say it in a very few lines, few words -- even a single
word may be enough. The less you have to say, the more words you will have to use. The more you have to
say, the less words you can use.

Now it has become a known fact to psychologists that words are used not to say, but to hide. We go on

talking because we want to hide something. If you want to hide something you cannot be silent, because
your face may say it, your silence may indicate it. The other may become suspicious that you are hiding
something. So a person who has to hide something will go on talking continuously. Through words you can
deceive; through silence you cannot deceive.

The Upanishads really have something to say, so they say it in seed form -- in sutras, in aphorisms. This

Upanishad has only seventeen sutras. They can be written on a half page. On one postcard this whole
Upanishad can be written -- on one side! But it has a very potent message, so we will take each seed word
and try to penetrate it, to be in a living response with it. Something may begin to vibrate in you. And it can
begin because these words are very potential, they have much. If their atoms could be broken. much energy
would be released. So be open, receptive, in a deep trust, and let the Upanishad work.

Now we enter into the "Atma Pooja -- Worship of the Self -- Upanishad":

AUM MEDITATION IS THE CONSTANT CONTEMPLATION OF THAT.

"AUM": this word "AUM" is very significant -- significant as a sign, as a symbol, as a secret key. So

first we must decode it.

AUM has five matras, five steps. The first step is A, the second is U, the third is M. These are gross

steps. When we utter AUM, A-U-M -- these are three words. But utter AUM [long], and in the end the M
resounds -- "mmm". That is a half step -- the fourth. Three are gross and can be heard. The fourth is half
gross. If you are very aware, only then is it heard; otherwise it is lost. And the fifth is just never heard.
When the sound of AUM vibrates and the vibrations go into the cosmic emptiness, when the sound has gone
and a soundlessness remains, that is the fifth. You utter the word AUM, then A-U-M is heard very clearly,
then a lingering sound of "mmm" -- half a step -- and then soundlessness. That is the fifth. These five steps
are just signs towards many things.

First, the Upanishads know that human consciousness has five steps. We know the three gross ones --

the waking, the dreaming and the sleep. These are three gross -- A-U-M. The Upanishads call the fourth
turiya. They have not named it because it is not gross. The fourth is that in which one becomes aware of
deep sleep also. If you have been deep in sleep, in a deep dreamless sleep, if in the morning you can say, "I
have been in a deep, deep sleep," then someone in you has been aware and remembers somehow that there
has been a very deep, dreamless sleep -- but a witness was there. That witness is known as the fourth. But
the Upanishads say that even the fourth is not the ultimate, because to be a witness is still to be separate. So
when the witness also dissolves, if only the Existence remains, without a witness, that is the fifth. So this
AUM is a sign for many things -- for many things -- for five bodies in man. The Upanishads divide them
into anamaya, pranamaya, manomaya, vigyanamaya and anandamaya -- five sheaths, five bodies.

This AUM is a cosmic sign. This is just a sign, but it is also a symbol. What does it mean when I say it

is also a symbol? When someone goes deep into Existence, to the roots, to the very roots, then thoughts are
no more there, the thinker is no more there, objectivity is no more there, subjectivity is no more there -- but,
still, everything is. In that thoughtless, thinkerless moment, a sound is heard. That sound resembles AUM --
just resembles it. It is not AUM; that is why it is a symbol. We cannot reproduce it. This is the approximate
resemblance. That is why it has been likened to many sounds, but it is always nearer to AUM.

Christians and Mohammedans have represented it as AMEN. That sound which is heard when

everything is lost, and only a sound vibrates, resembles AUM. It can resemble amen. In English, there are
many words -- omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent. That OMN is the sound. Really, "omniscient" refers to
one who has seen the AUM, and AUM is a symbol for all. "Omnipotent" means one who has become one
with AUM, because that is the potentiality of the whole cosmos. "Omnipresent" means one who is present
in the sound of AUM, and that sound surrounds all; it overflows all.

The OMN in omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, is AUM. AMEN is AUM. Different seekers,

different persons, have come with different resemblances, but they always somehow resemble AUM. This is
a symbol -- a symbol of a universal sound. Modern science thinks in terms of electric particles as the
foundational units of Existence -- but the Upanishads think not of electrical particles, but of sound particles
as the basis.

Science says that sound is a modification of electric vibrations, that sound itself is nothing but

electricity. The Upanishads say electricity is nothing but sound modifications. One thing is certain -- that
somehow sound and electricity are convertible. Which is basic? Science says electricity is basic, the
Upanishads say sound is basic. And I think this difference is simply because of their approaches. The
Upanishads reach to the Ultimate Reality through sound, through mantra. They use sound to reach
soundlessness. By and by, the sound is dropped; by and by, soundlessness is achieved. Ultimately, when
they reach to the bottom, they hear a cosmic sound. It is not a thought; it is not a created sound. It is just in
the very nature of Existence that it sounds.

That sound they have called AUM. They say that when we say AUM, it is just a resemblance -- a very

far, far-off copy. It is not true, it is not that which is known there, because it is created by us. It is created by
us! It is just like a photograph of something: it simply resembles. My photograph simply resembles me: it is
not me.

I have heard about the Dutch painter, Van Gogh. A sophisticated lady met Van Gogh on the street and

said, "I have seen a portrait of you, and it was so lovely and so beautiful that I kissed it."
Van Gogh asked, "Did the portrait reply?"
The lady said, "No! How can the portrait reply?"
So Van Gogh said, "Then it was not me!"

A photograph can resemble: it is not real. Mm? -- nothing is wrong with it: it is enough that it resembles,

but one should not mistake it for the real. So AUM is just a symbol -- a symbol of something it resembles --
like a photograph.

AUM is also a secret key. When I say a secret key, I mean that because it resembles the ultimate sound,

if you can use it and, by and by, go deep with it, you will reach to the ultimate door -- because it resembles.
And it will resemble more if you do certain things with it. For example, if you utter AUM then you have to
use your lips; your body mechanism is to be used. Then it will resemble less, because a very gross
mechanism has to be used and it perverts. It changes AUM into a gross thing. Do not use your lips. Create
the sound of AUM in yourself only through your mind. Do not use your body. Then it will resemble more,
because now you will be using a more subtle medium. It will give a finer photograph, more close to the real.

Do not even use mind: first use the gross body, then drop it; then use your mind -- just create the sound

of AUM inwardly; then even stop that, and let the sound echo itself. Do not make any effort: it comes. Then
it becomes AJAPA -- then you are not creating it; you are just in the flow of it. Then it goes even deeper and
it becomes even more real. You can use it as a key. When it becomes effortless -- when it is not with your
body, nor with your mind, but when the sound just flows in you -- you are very near.

Now only one thing has still to be dropped -- the one who is feeling this AUM. The "I", the ego, that

feels that "AUM is surrounding me." If you drop this also then there is no barrier, and the copy, the
photograph, drops into the real, the original. So it is also a secret key.

This AUM is miraculous. It is as foundational to mystics as Einstein's formula of relativity is to physics.

That formula is three things: a sign, a symbol and a secret key -- and AUM is also three things. But,
basically, it is a secret key. Unless you open the doors, it is useless to go on thinking about it, futile, wasting
time and life and energy. Unless you are ready to open the door, what is the use of talking about the key?
Even if you understand all the implications, all the philosophical implications, it is meaningless. So AUM is
always put in the beginning, and it is always put in the end. The Upanishads always begin with AUM, they
always end with AUM. This is the key!

If you enter the house, the first thing to be used is the key; and again, when you come out, the last thing

to be used is the key. So enter! Use the key! But if you begin to contemplate on the key and continue sitting
at the door, then the key is not a key for you but a barrier. Throw it! -- because it is not opening anything.

Rather, it is closing. And you are constantly thinking about the key.

One can go on thinking about the key without using it. There are many who have pondered, thought and

contemplated about what AUM means. They have created structures, big structures on it, but they have
never used the key. They have never entered the palace. It is a symbol, it is a sign, BUT basically it is a
secret key. It can be used as a method to enter into the Cosmic, as a method to drop into the oceanic. The
subtler it becomes, the deeper, the nearer it goes to the real; the grosser, the less.

"Meditation is the constant contemplation of That": this is the first sutra.
We live in a world of three dimensions. One dimension is "I-it" -- the world of things. I and my house, I

and my furniture, I and my wealth: this is the realm of I-it. A world of it surrounds me.

Then there is another dimension, I-thou: I and my beloved, I and my friend, I and my family -- a world

of persons. This is the second realm.

Then there is a third realm, I-That: I and the universe. The Upanishad says, "Meditation is the constant

contemplation of THAT" -- neither of it, nor of thou, but of That. That means the Whole. It is not a thing,
not a person: it is a That But why use That? Whenever we say "That", it means something that transcends,
something that is beyond, something that is not where we are -- neither in our relationships with things nor
in our relationships with persons.... That -- without any name, because if you give it a name -- for example,
if you call it "God" -- it becomes an I-thou relationship. If you call it "father" or "mother", then you bring it
to the second dimension. If you say there is no God, then you have to live in a one-dimensional world, I-it.

That is not a thing. Theists are ready to say it is not a thing, but they say it is a person. The Upanishads

are not even ready to call it a person, because to make it a person is to limit it and to make it a person is to
make it finite. They simply use the word "that". They say, "It is all, but we cannot name it because it has no
form, no limitation. It is the ALLNESS." Then what to call it? They do not call it "God", they do not call it
"Divine", they do not call it "Lord" -- they do not call it by any name. There is no form, no name They
simply use the word "that", and continuous contemplation of That is meditation.

If you can remember That continuously, then you are in meditation. When you are with things,

remember That; when you are with persons, remember That. Wherever you are remember That -- the All.
Never see the limited as limited: always look deep and feel the unlimited. Never see the form as the form:
always look deep and see the formless in it. Never see the thing as the thing: go deep, feel it, and the That
will be revealed. Never see any person cased in his personality. Penetrate deep and feel that which goes
beyond -- the within beyond.

The continuous contemplation of That is meditation -- no ritual, no method, no technique, simply

continuous contemplation. But it is arduous, because one has to remember continuously, with no gap, no
discontinuity, not even a single moment's forgetfulness. Remembrance continuous -- constant, without any
gap. It is the most arduous thing to remember continuously. We cannot remember continuously even for a
few seconds. Just begin to count your breath, and remember how many breaths you can count while
continuously remembering, constantly remembering the process of breathing -- the incoming, the outgoing
breaths. Remember, and count. You have counted three or four, and then you miss. Something else comes
in, and you have forgotten. And then you remember, "Oh, I was counting, and I have counted only three and
I missed!"

Remembrance is the most difficult thing -- because we are asleep. We are deeply asleep! We are

walking in sleep, talking in sleep, moving, living, loving, doing everything in sleep, in a deep
somnambulism -- a deep, natural hypnosis. That is why there is so much confusion and so much conflict, so
much violence and so much war. It is really a miracle how the human race has survived -- so much sleep,
and still we manage somehow!

But we are asleep. Our behaviour is not a behaviour which can be called alert, attentive, aware -- we are

not. For a single minute. we cannot be aware of ourselves. Try it, and then you will feel how much asleep
you are. If I cannot remember myself continuously for one minute, for sixty seconds, how deeply asleep I
must be! Two or three seconds, and then sleep comes and I am not there: I have moved. The consciousness
has been dropped, the unconscious has come in. There is a deep darkness, and again I remember that I was
trying to be aware.

P. D. Ouspensky was working with Gurdjieff on his method of self-remembering. The first time he met

Gurdjieff he said, "What do you mean by self-remembering? I remember myself: I am P. D. Ouspensky."

Gurdjieff said, "Close your eyes and remember that you are P. D. Ouspensky, and when you forget, tell

me. Be frank!"

Only three or four seconds passed, and Ouspensky opened his eyes and he said, "I began to dream. I

forgot that I am P. D. Ouspensky. I tried three or four times. I said within myself, 'I am P. D. Ouspensky, I
am P. D. Ouspensky, I am P. D. Ouspensky,' and then a dream broke in and I was not aware."

So Gurdjieff said, "This is not self-remembering -- that you are P. D. Ouspensky. Firstly, you are not P.

D. Ouspensky, and, secondly, this is not remembering. When the remembering comes, you will be the first
to deny that you are P. D. Ouspensky."

For three months Ouspensky tried hard, very hard. The more you try, the more you become aware how

hard it is. The more you try, the more you begin to feel that "I have been asleep all my life." This is just a
mechanical awareness that we have. We can move with it, do the routine, but can never go deep. For three
months, when he tried and tried and tried and then became aware, a new pillar of consciousness came into
existence. When he could feel and be aware constantly, then Gurdjieff asked him to come with him and to
move on the street. So Ouspensky said, "For the first time, on the street of a big City, I became aware that
everyone is asleep, everyone is moving in sleep. But I had moved in the same street and was never aware.
And I saw every man asleep -- just with open eyes." He became so afraid that he said to his teacher, "I
cannot go further; I must go back. Everyone is so asleep that anything can happen here. I cannot move."

Just sit by the side of the street and look at people's eyes moving. Then you will become aware that

everyone is closed within himself. He is not aware of what is happening around him. Someone is talking
with himself, someone is moving his hands, making gestures; he may be in some dream. Lips are moving,
everyone is talking within; no one is aware of what is happening around him. All are moving just
automaton-like. They are going to their homes; they need not even remember where their homes are -- they
just move automatically.Their legs move, their hands move their car wheels, they reach their homes, but this
whole process is just a sleep -- a mechanical routine. Tracks are there, and on those tracks they go on
moving. That is why we are always afraid of the new -- because then we have to create new tracks. We are
afraid of the new because for the new the routine will not do, and for some time we will have to be a bit
alert. We are always fixed in our dead routines and are, in a way, dead. A sleeping person is really dead. He
cannot be said to be alive.

Only for moments, for a few moments in the whole life, do we become aware, and those moments are

either in deep moments of love, which are rare.... It happens only to a few people, to very few. And when it
happens, everyone else will feel that that man has gone mad -- because he becomes so different, because he
comes to see things in a different colour, with a different music, with a different light. He begins to look
around, and he sees a different world! Of course, he has gone mad for us, so we can forgive him because "he
is mad". He is "in a dream". Really, the contrary is the case: we are asleep, and for a moment he has become
aware of a deeper reality. But he is alone, and that awareness cannot continue because it is just an accidental
happening.

It is not by his effort that he has attained it. It has just happened. rt is an accident. He will go to sleep

again, and when he goes to sleep then he will feel that he has been betrayed by his lover or beloved, because
that magic is no more there. That magic came because he became aware of a different world. In this world
there are different worlds. He became aware and now he is asleep again, so he feels he has been betrayed.
Every lover feels that he has been betrayed. No one has betrayed him. Only in a sudden awakening he has
seen a different world, with a different beauty, with different sounds, and now he is again asleep. That
glimpse is lost and he feels he has been betrayed. No one has betrayed him. It is only that suddenly he
became aware.

One becomes aware either with love or with death. If you are suddenly in the grip of death, you will be

aware. In sudden accidents -- the car speeding uncontrollably down the hill -- you will become aware,
because there is no future and the past has ended. Only the present moment -- this moment of dropping
down the hill -- is all. Now a different dimension of time opens. You are here and now for the first time.
Dreams are not possible because there is no future. You cannot think about the future. The past is just
ending. Between these two, for this moment, in this calamity, you have become aware. So love and death
are the only moments when we become aware, but they are not in our hands. They are not!

So when the Upanishad says "the constant contemplation of That", it means that if you can remember

continuously, constantly, in everything, in every event, that whatsoever is, is That -- inside, outside; if
everything becomes just a symbol for the remembrance of That, then the consciousness will explode, the
sleep will not be there, you will become conscious and aware. That consciousness, that awareness, is
meditation.

There are two more things. "Continuous" means without any gap -- not a single moment's gap. But this

is difficult, because then your life will be impossible. If you go on continuously remembering Him, how can

you live, how can you move, how can you eat? That problem arises if you begin to remember His name, if
you begin to remember "Ram", "Jesus" or something else. If you begin to remember His name, if you give
some name to Him, and begin to repeat "Ram-Ram-Ram", then your life will become impossible, because
either you can remember "Ram" or you can move on the street.

One soldier was brought to me, a very sincere man, a very devoted one. He was trying continuously to

remember "Ram". Someone, some guru told him to remember "Ram" continuously. He became so much
absorbed with that repetition that outward life became impossible -- impossible! He could not sleep because
he had to remember "Ram". So if you are repeating "Ram-Ram-Ram" inside, you cannot go to sleep. This
constant activity will not allow it. He could not move on the street because someone may be honking a horn
and he could not hear. He was surrounded by his own repetition -- closed. He became insensitive. He was a
military soldier, so his captain brought him to me and said. "He cannot even listen. I say, 'Left turn!' and he
is standing and he is looking. He is absent. What is he doing?"

The captain told me, "It has become impossible! This man has to be hospitalized."

I asked the soldier, "What are you doing?"

He said, "I can tell you but not my captain. My guru has given me a mantra to repeat continuously, so I

am repeating 'Ram-Ram-Ram'. And now the repetition has gone so deep -- for three years I have been
repeating continuously -- that I have lost sleep. I cannot see what is happening, I cannot hear what is
happening around me. A great barrier has come between myself and the world. I am enclosed within my
repetition of 'Ram'." He asked me, "How can I do both? If I have to repeat it continuously, then I cannot do
anything else. So tell me what to do. If I do anything else, then this repetition breaks. Gaps are bound to
come there."

This is not meant here. That is why the Upanishad is not giving any name, any form, but is simply

saying "That". It is possible to remember That continuously, because you are not to remember His name.
Rather, you have to feel That in everything you are doing -- just carrying water from the well!

One Zen monk, Bokuju, was asked, "What do you do continuously?"
He said, "I don't do anything continuously. Whatsoever I am doing, I am doing it totally. When I am

carrying water from the well, I am carrying water from the well. When I am chopping wood, I am chopping
wood. When I am sleeping, I am sleeping."
The questioner asked, "Then what are you DOING?"

Bokuju said, "I am not doing anything. When I am chopping wood, He is chopping wood. When I am

carrying the water, He is carrying the water. And He is the water which is being carried, and He is the wood
which is being chopped. Now He is and I am not! So everything has become a worship and everything has
become a meditation."

This whole Upanishad is concerned with how to make your whole life a worship. This Upanishad is

absolutely anti-ritualistic: no ritual is needed; only a different attitude, a remembering of That -- doing,
non-doing, but remembering That. And when I say "remembering That," it is not a mental remembering.
You are not to remember, "Okay, this stone is That." If you have to remember in this way, that "this stone is
THAT," then it is not remembering, because still two exist -- this stone and That. When the Upanishad says,
"constant contemplation of That," it means the stone must drop! ONLY THAT IS! That is a deep
realization, a constant realization.

Begin to feel. Do not touch a thing without feeling the That; do not love anyone without feeling That; do

not move, do not even breathe, without feeling That. It is not that you have to impose That on everything:
you have to discover That in everything. Mm? -- the distinction must be clear. You are not to impose That
on everything. You can impose; that will be just a trick. You have to discover! Seeing a flower, you can
impose and can say, "Oh, that flower is That!"

No, do not impose, do not say anything! Just remain silent near the flower. Look at it, be in deep

sympathy with it, in a deep communion with it. Forget yourself. Just be a passive awareness there, and the
flower will flower into That. The That will be revealed.

So go on discovering That! That is what is meant by "constant contemplation". And, constant

contemplation of That is meditation.

The Ultimate Alchemy, Vol 1

Chapter #2

Chapter title: Dissolution into the Cosmic

16 February 1972 pm in Bombay, India

Archive code: 7202165

ShortTitle: ULTAL102

Audio:

Yes

Video:

No

Length: 97 mins

OSHO, YOU SAID LAST NIGHT THAT THOSE WHO HAVE BECOME VOID, VALLEY-LIKE, DO NOT
REACT BUT THEY RESPOND, AND THAT THE RESPONSES OF THESE DIFFERENT ENLIGHTENED
ONES WILL BE DIFFERENT -- THAT THE VALLEY WILL REECHO IN ITS OWN UNIQUE AND INDIVIDUAL
WAY.
NOW A QUESTION ARISES WHETHER THOSE WHO BECOME ABSOLUTELY VOID, NOTHINGNESS,
STILL HAVE A PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUALITY. IF SO, THEN PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THIS
BECOMES POSSIBLE.

THIS is one of the paradoxes of spiritual life: the more one dissolves into the Divine, the more unique

one becomes. The dissolution is not of the individuality but of the self. The dissolution is not of the
uniqueness but of the ego. The more you are an ego, the more you are like others, because everyone is an
egoist.

The ego is the most ordinary thing in the world. Everyone is an egoist; even a newborn child is an egoist

-- a perfect egoist. So it is not anyone's achievement; it is not extraordinary. Really, it can be said that to be
just ordinary is the most extraordinary thing possible because no one feels just ordinary. So to feel oneself
extraordinary is just the most ordinary thing. Everyone feels like that! So ego is not something unique.

If you have an ego, it is not something unique. Really, egolessness is the most unique thing, the most

uncommon -- rare. It happens only sometimes. Centuries pass and rarely the event happens that someone
becomes egoless -- a Buddha, a Jesus. But when we say that someone becomes egoless, it does not mean
that he is not. Really, for the first time, now he is -- authentically grounded into the very Being. He is no
more an ego.

So take it from a different root: ego is a false phenomenon -- just an appearance, not a reality. It is not

something grounded in the Being -- just a dream, a thought, just a mental construction. So the more you
belong to the ego, the less you belong to the Existence. The more you concentrate on your ego, the less and
less you are authentic. You become false -- an existential lie.

When we talk about becoming empty, nothing, valley-like, we mean that there is no ego -- but you

ARE! Let me say it in this way: I say "I am", but when the ego dissolves there remains the pure "am-ness".
The "I" is no longer there, but "am-ness" is there, and for the first time pure, total, uncontaminated. The ego
contaminates it.

The word "personality" and the word "individuality" must not be confused. They are totally different

They do not mean any similar entity: they are not the same at all. Personality belongs to the ego.
individuality to the Being. Personality is just a facade. The ego is the center and the personality is the
circumference. It is not individuality at all.

This word "personality" is very meaningful. It is derived from the Greek word "persona". "Persona"

means a mask. In Greek drama, the characters, the actors, will use masks to hide their faces so the real face
is hidden and the masked face becomes the reality. "Personality" means a mask -- that which you are not but

only appear to be.

So we have many faces; really, no one has one personality. Mm? -- we have multi-personalities.

Everyone has to change faces the whole day. You cannot remain with one face. It will be so difficult
because every time you face someone else you have to use another face. Before your servant you cannot
have the same face as you have before your master. Before your wife you cannot have the same face as you
have before your beloved. So, continuously, we have a flexible system of changing faces.

For the whole day, the whole life, we are continuously changing faces. You can be aware of this. You

can feel when you change a face and why you change it and how many faces you have. So, really, a
personality means a system of flexible faces, and when you say that someone has a great personality it only
means that he has a more flexible system. He is not a fixed man: he has a more flexible system. He can
change very easily. He is a big actor.

This is personality; you have to construct it every moment. So no one can be at ease with his

personality. It is a constant effort. So if you are tired, your personality will lose its lustre. In the morning
your personality has a lustre, in the evening it is lost. The whole day of utility: it is constantly changing. So
when I use the word "personality", I mean a false appearance which you have created around yourself.

Individuality is something else. Individuality does not mean something constructed and created by you,

but the very nature of your being. Again, the word "individuality" is very meaningful. It means that which
cannot be divided, which is indivisible. We have an inherent intrinsic nature which cannot be divided,
which is indivisible. Carl Gustav Jung chooses the word "individuation" as one of the deepest phenomena.
He said individuation is the way towards Truth, towards the Divine -- individuation: being an individual.

The Indian term "yoga" means the same thing as individuation. The term "yoga" means to conjoin again

that which has become divisible, to join again that which has become divided, to come again to the
indivisible. So when translating "yoga" into English, it would be better if we call it "the way to
individuation". This individuality remains and becomes more penetrating, becomes more sharp. The
moment you lose the ego, the moment you discard your personalities, you become individual.

This individuality is a unique phenomenon. This is unrepeatable. A Buddha cannot be repeated; a

Gautam Siddharth can be repeated. A Jesus can be repeated, but not Jesus Christ. Jesus means the
personality; Jesus Christ means the individuality. Gautam Siddharth is just ordinary; he can be repeated.
Anyone can be Gautam Siddharth. But the moment Gautam Siddharth becomes Enlightened and becomes
the Buddha, now the phenomenon is unrepeatable. It is unique! It has never been before and it will never be
again. This Buddhahood, this peak of realization, is so unique that it cannot be repeated.

So when I said to be just like a valley and when I said that every valley will echo differently, I meant

that every valley has its own individuality. Buddha has his own, Jesus his, Krishna his. So, really, this will
be good to understand.

Why do Krishna, Christ and Buddha differ so much? They differ! They differ as much as there is any

possibility to differ, but still they are, in a very deep way, one. As far as individuation is concerned they are
one; as far as individualities are concerned they are different. They have come to the Undivided. They have
realized the Undivided, the basic unity of Existence. But because of this basic unity and its realization, it
does not mean that now they are not unique. now they are really unique. That's why I say this is one of the
paradoxes.

Two ordinary persons can differ, but their difference can never be total, absolute -- never! Even in their

difference they have similarities. Really, their difference is always of degrees. Even if they are totally
contrary to one another, their difference is of degrees. A person who is a communist and a person who is
anticommunist, even they are different only in degrees. The person who is anti-communist is still
communist to a lesser degree; and the person who is a communist is still a capitalist to a lesser degree. The
difference is always of degrees. And they can change, they can change camps very easily; there is no
problem. Ordinarily, they change. The difference is just like that of cold and heat -- only of degrees. But a
Buddha and Krishna, a Christ and Mohammed, and a Lao Tzu and Mahavir -- their difference is not of
degrees. They can never meet. And this is the paradox: they have come to Oneness, and yet they can never
meet. The difference is not of degrees. The difference is of their uniqueness.
What do I mean by this uniqueness?

We can conceive of oneness very easily. A drop of water drops into the ocean and becomes one with it,

but that oneness is just dead -- a dead oneness. The drop lost itself completely; it is nowhere now. A Buddha
is not dropping in that way. His dropping is in a different way. If you put a flame before the sun, the flame
becomes one with the sun, but the individuality is not lost; it still remains itself. If we burn fifty flames in

this room they will create one light, but every flame will be a flame unique m itself. So this dissolution into
the Cosmic is not a simple dissolution. It is very complex. The complexity is this: the one who dissolves,
remains. Rather, on the contrary, for the first time, he is.

This individuality echoes differently, and that is the beauty of it. It is beautiful! Otherwise it will be just

ugly. Just think: if Buddha responds in the same way as Jesus the world will be poorer for it. very poor. A
Buddha responds in his own way, a Jesus in his own way. The world is richer for it and there is beauty. The
world is freer and you can be yourself.

But this distinction must be remembered: when I say that you can be yourself, I do not mean your ego.

When I say you can be yourself, I mean your nature, your Tao, your Existence. But it has an individuality.
That individuality is not personality. So I say they belong to the same Existence, yet individually. They
respond from the same depth, but individually. No sense of ego is there, but the uniqueness remains.

This world is not just a colourless unity; it is not monotonous. It has multi-colours; it is multi-tonal. You

can create music with one note also, but then it will be just monotonous and boring. It cannot be lively; it
cannot be beautiful. A more subtle and complex harmony is achieved through many notes -- multi-phonal.
A harmony runs through, but it is not a monotonous thing. And each note has its own individuality. It
contributes to the total harmony, and it contributes only because it has its own individuality.

A Buddha contributes only because he is a Buddha, and a Jesus contributes only because he is a Jesus.

He gives a new note. a new vibration. A new harmony is born because of him. But that is possible only
because he has an individuality. And this is not only for deeper things. Even for very trivial and small
things, a Buddha and Jesus differ. A Buddha walks in his own way; no one else can walk like that. A Jesus
looks in his own way; no one else can look like that. Even their eyes, the very gestures, the very words they
use, are unique. The other cannot even conceive....

This world is a harmony of unique notes, and the music is richer for that -- every valley echoing in its

own way.

All those good-wishers who try to impose a dead unity, and who try to wash out individuality from

everywhere, who say that the Koran means the same thing as the Gita, who say that Buddha teaches the
same thing as Mahavir, are not really aware of what nonsense they are talking. And if they could win, the
world would become just a poor world. How can the Koran say the same thing as the Gita? And how can
the Gita say the same thing as the Koran? The Koran has its own individuality -- no Gita can say that, and
no Koran can repeat the Gita -- because Krishna has his own aura, Mohammed his own. They never meet,
and yet, I say, they stand on the same ground. They never meet, and this is the beauty. And they will never
meet. They will be just like parallel lines running to infinity.

They will never meet! This is what I mean by uniqueness: they are like peaks. The higher the peak goes,

the less is the possibility of meeting with another peak. You can meet when you are on the ground;
everything is meeting. But the higher you go, the more of a peak you become, and the less is the possibility
of any meeting. So they are like Himalayan peaks, never meeting. And if you try to impose a false unity
over them, you will just destroy the peaks.

They are different, but their difference need not be inimical, their difference need not be a conflict. The

conflict arises only because we are not ready to accept differences. Then we try to find similarities. Either
we must have similarities or we will have conflict. Either we must speak the same thing or we must be
enemies. We have only two alternatives -- and both are wrong. They belong to one attitude. Why should
they not be different? -- altogether different, meeting nowhere? What is the need of conflict? Really,
different notes create a beautiful harmony. Then there is a deeper meeting -- no meeting in the notes
themselves, but in what the notes create; in the harmony there is a meeting.

But one must begin to feel that harmony. If one only knows a jarring note -- a Mohammed, a Jesus, a

Buddha, are just notes -- no harmony is felt. And the universe is a harmony. If you can begin to feel the gaps
and the underlying unity and the soaring peaks meeting nowhere, and if you can see this whole in a totality,
in a comprehensive unity, you then accept both -- the individuality and the common harmony. Then there is
no problem. There is not!

CAN THIS ALSO EXPLAIN WHY MAHAVIR AND BUDDHA, WHO WERE CONTEMPORARIES, NEVER
MET -- NEVER PHYSICALLY CAME ACROSS ONE ANOTHER?

They cannot meet! -- even physically. They came, so many times, very near meeting. Once they were

both staying in one SARAI -- inn -- in one part Mahavir and in another part Buddha. But there was no
meeting. They passed through the same villages. Their whole lives they were confined to Bihar, a very
small area. They visited the same villages; they remained in the same villages; they talked to the same
audiences. Their followers went on coming from Buddha to Mahavir and from Mahavir to Buddha. There
was much controversy; there was much conversion. But they never met.

They cannot meet! Their very beings are now such peaks that the meeting is not possible. The meeting

has become intrinsically impossible. Even if they just sit side by side, they can never meet. Even if to us
they appear to be meeting and embracing each other, they can never meet. Their meeting has become
impossible. They are so unique, they are so peak-like, the inner meeting is impossible. What is the use of
meeting outwardly? It is useless, it is meaningless!

This seems inconceivable to us. We think that two good persons should meet. For us, the non-meeting

attitude is something bad. But really, there is no non-meeting attitude -- there is impossibility! It is not that
Buddha would not like to meet Mahavir. It is not that Mahavir is resistant. No -- it is simply impossible; it
just cannot happen. There is no attitude about it. So, really, this is miraculous. They remained in one village,
they stayed in one sarai, but never, neither in Buddhist literature nor in Jain scriptures, is there any
reference to anyone suggesting that they should meet -- not a single reference. There is not even a reference
that it was suggested that it would have been better if they both met. This is miraculous -- surprising!
Neither has denied the other. Neither Buddha nor Mahavir has said, "I will not meet." Why didn't they
meet? It is a sheer impossibility! It is not possible!

For us who stand on the ground it looks strange. But if you stand on the peak, then it will not look

strange. Why not ask a Himalayan peak to meet another? They are so near -- so near! Why can they not
meet? Their very being, their very peak-hood, creates the impossibility. So it is not a question of why they
never met -- they cannot, they will never. The very door is closed. And yet I say they are one: howsoever
one peak may differ from another, in their very roots they are one. They may both belong to the same part of
earth, but only in the roots are they one.

There is another point to be pondered over: because they are so much one in the roots, there is not even

any necessity to meet. Only those who are not one in the ground will try to meet, because basically they
know there is no meeting.

Many people have asked me why I have not tried a great synthesis of all the religions. Gandhi has tried;

many others, including Theosophists, have tried. They have tried for a great synthesis of all the religions. I
say that if you try, you show that you know there is no synthesis. The effort shows that you feel that
somewhere religions are divided. I do not feel this at all. In the roots they are one, and in the peaks they are
divided and they must be divided. Every peak has its own beauty. Why destroy it? Why try to create a false
thing which is not there? A peak must be a peak -- an individual. In the earth they are one.

So the Koran must remain purely Koran. Nothing should be imposed, infiltrated from the Gita or the

Ramayana or anything else. No interpolation, no mixing! The Koran must remain in its purity the Koran. It
is a peak -- a beautiful peak. Why destroy it? This is possible only if you are aware of a deeper unity in the
ground, in the roots.

Religions are one in their roots, but never in their expression -- and they should not be. So as the world

progresses more, as human consciousness becomes more conscious, more integrated, there will be more
religions. Not less -- more! Ultimately, if every human being becomes a peak. there will be as many
religions as there are human beings. Why should anyone follow Mohammed if he himself can become a
peak? Why should he follow Krishna if he himself can become a peak?

This is unfortunate, that one has to follow anybody. This is just a necessary evil. If you cannot become a

peak, only then do you have to follow. But follow in such a way that the sooner you can become a peak the
better. We can have a beautiful world, a greater world with a greater humanity, with everyone as a unique
peak. But that peak can come only through individuation, through dissolving the ego and the false
personality, and remaining centered in your nature, in your pure being. Then you become like a valley, and
then there are echoes.

OSHO, YESTERDAY YOU EXPLAINED ABOUT THREE TYPES OF LISTENING: FIRST, LISTENING
THOUGH THE INTELLECT; SECOND, THROUGH EMOTION, SYMPATHY AND LOVE; AND THIRD,
THROUGH THE WHOLE BEING, THROUGH FAITH. CONSIDERING THE FIRST TWO TYPES OF

LISTENING, HOW DOES ONE ARRIVE AT THE THIRD TYPE OF LISTENING -- THAT IS, THROUGH THE
WHOLE BEING, THROUGH FAITH? AND ARE THE INTELLECT AND EMOTIONS INCLUDED AND
INVOLVED IN THE THIRD TYPE OF LISTENING?

Intellectual listening means that when you are listening you are simultaneously arguing with it. A

constant argument is going on. I am saying something to you, you are listening, and constantly there is an
argument inside: whether this is right or wrong. You are comparing with your own concepts, your own
ideology, your own system. So constantly, when you are listening to me, you are comparing whether I
confirm your ideas or not, whether I am according to you or not; whether you can concede to me or not,
whether I am convincing or not. How is listening possible in this way? You are too full of yourself, so it is
miraculous that within this constant inner turmoil you are capable of listening to something. And even then,
whatsoever you have heard will not be what I have said. It cannot be -- because when the mind is full with
its own ideas, it goes on giving colours to everything that comes to it. It hears not what is being said, but
what it wants to hear. It chooses, it drops, it interprets, and only then does something penetrate in -- but that
has a completely different shape. So this is what is meant by intellectual listening.

If you want to go deep in understanding what is being said. this inner turmoil must stop. It must cease! It

must not continue! Otherwise, you are in your own way, and constantly destroying the very possibility of
something which can happen to you. You can miss, and everyone is missing much.

We live enclosed in our own minds, and we carry that enclosure with us everywhere. So whatsoever we

see, whatsoever we hear, whatsoever happens around us, it is never transmitted to the inner consciousness
directly. The mind remains in between, always playing tricks.

One must be aware that this is happening. This is the first thing in order to go deep. This is the first thing

for the second stage of listening -- to be aware of what your mind is doing to you. It is coming in between.
Wherever you move, it moves before you. It is not like a shadow which follows. you have become a shadow
to it. It goes, and you have to move. It moves before you and colours everything. So you are never in
contact with the "facticity" of anything. The mind creates a fiction.

You must be aware of this phenomenon of what the mind is doing. But you are not -- because we are.

identified with the mind, we never think that the mind is doing something. When I say something and it
does not tally with your thought, it is not that you will think that your mind is not tallying with the thought.
You will think, "No, I am not convinced." You do not have a gap between you and your mind. You are
identified -- and that is really the problem. That is how the mind can play tricks with you.

You are identified with a thought or with a thought process. And this is strange, because only two days

before this the thought was not yours. You heard it somewhere; now you have absorbed it and it has become
your own. And now this thought will say, "No -- this is not right because this is not according to me." You
will not feel the difference that this is mind speaking, memory speaking, the mechanism speaking. You will
not feel that "I must remain aloof".

Even if you have to compare, even if you have to judge, you must remain aloof -- aloof from your

memory, from your mind, from your past. But there is a subtle identification: "My mind is me." So I say, "I
am a Communist" or "I am a Catholic" or "I am a Hindu." I never say, "My mind has been brought up in
such a way that my mind is Hindu " This is the fact: you are not Hindu. How can you be a Hindu? It is only
the mind. If you are the Hindu, then there is no possibility of any transformation.

The mind can be changed, and you must remain capable of changing it. If you become identified with it,

then you lose your freedom. The greatest freedom is to be free of one's own mind. The greatest, I say -- to
be free from one's own mind -- because it is a subtle bondage, so deep that you never feel it as a bondage
The very prison becomes your home.

Be constantly aware that your mind is not your consciousness. And the more you are aware, the more

you will feel that consciousness is something totally different. Consciousness is the energy, mind is just the
thought content. Be the master of it! Don't allow it to be the master; don't allow it to just go ahead of you
everywhere. Let it follow you, use it, but don't be used by it. It is an instrument, but we are identified with
this instrument. Mm? So break the identification. Remember that you are not the mind.

But, really, so-called religious persons always remember: "We are not the body." They never remember:

"We are not the mind." And body is not a bondage at all. Mind is the bondage! Your body is not a bondage
at all! Your mind is. And, really, your body comes from nature, from the Divine, and your mind from the
society. So body has a beauty, but never the mind. Mind is always ugly. It is a cultivated thing, a false
construct. The body has a very beautiful realm. And if you can drop the mind, then you will not feel any

conflict at all with the body. The body becomes just a door to the greater -- to the infinite expanse. There is
nothing ugly in the body -- mm? -- it is a natural flowering. But the so-called religious people are always
against the body and always for the mind. They have created such a nuisance! They have created such
confusion! And they have destroyed all sensitivity, because body is the source of all sensitivity. If once you
begin to be against your body, you will become insensate.

The mind is just an accumulation of past knowledge, information, experiences. It is just a computer. We

are identified with it. One is a Christian, one is a Hindu, one is a Communist. one is a Catholic, one is this
and that, but one is never oneself -- always identified somewhere with something. Remember this: be aware,
and create a distance between you and your mind. Never create any distance between you and your body.
Create a distance between you and your mind! You will be more alive and more childlike and more
innocent and more aware.

So the first thing is to create a distance: that is, not to identify. Remember you are not the mind, then the

first listening will change into the second.

The second is emotional -- deeply felt, sympathetic. It is a love attitude. You are hearing some music or

seeing a dance, so you don't just remember the intellect -- you begin to participate. When you are seeing a
dance, your feet begin to participate. When you are listening to music, your hands begin to be participants;
you begin to be part of it. This is a sympathetic way of listening, deeper than intellect. That's why, whenever
you can listen with your heart and feeling, you feel elated, you feel transported to somewhere else. Then
you are not in this world. Really, you are in this world, but you feel that you are not in this world. Why?
Because you are not in the world of the intellect.. A different realm opens -- you begin to be actively in it.

Intellect is always an onlooker standing out -- never in. So the more intellect grows in the world, the

more we become just passive observers -- in everything. You will not dance, but you will watch others
dancing. If this goes on as it is going on, day by day. soon you will not be doing anything. You will just be
looking at others doing. This will be possible some day: you will not love -- it has become possible, it is
there now -- you will just watch others loving. What are you watching in a film? Others loving! You are just
an onlooker -- a dead, passive onlooker. You are watching others playing. You are watching others singing,
others dancing.

Somewhere one character of Camus says, "Love is not for me. My servants will do it for me" -- love! A

really rich man! -- even love has to be done by his servants. Why should he do it? The logic is the same. If
servants can play music for you, if servants can do prayer for you, why not love? A servant is doing worship
for you in the temple, so why not love? If a servant can be used in between you and the Divine, why not
between you and your lover or beloved? What is wrong in it? The logic is the same. And, really, soon those
who are rich will not do their loving themselves. because servants can do it! Only poor ones will do their
own loving and will feel very miserable because of it. Everything can be deputed. You can be just an
onlooker, because intellect is basically an onlooker -- never a participant. If we create a world around
intellect, then it is going to happen.

The second center is more involved. You begin to participate. I say you will understand more if you

begin to participate, because the moment you are sympathetic your mind is open -- more open than when
you are in a constant fight. It is open, receptive, inviting.

This is how one can listen through feeling. But still there is a depth even deeper than feeling and that

depth I call total listening, with your full being -- because feeling is again a part. Intellect is a part, feeling is
a part, the source of action is another. There are many parts in your existence, in your being. You can listen
with feeling better than with intellect, but still it is only a part. And when you are listening with your
feeling, the intellect will just go to sleep; otherwise it will disturb. It will just go to sleep!

The third is to listen totally -- not even participating with it, but being one with it. One way is to watch

dance through intellect; another is to feel dance and begin to participate in it. Sitting in your seat, the dancer
is dancing. You begin to participate; you begin to keep the beat. And the third is becoming the dance
oneself -- not the dancer, but the dance. The total being is involved. You are not even out to feel it: you are
it!

So remember that the deepest knowledge is possible only when you become one with something. This is

by faith.

How to come to it? Be aware of your intellect; be unidentified with the mind. Then come to the second

-- feeling. Then be aware that feeling is just a part and your whole being is just Lying dead. The whole is
not there, so bring the whole into it. When you bring the whole in. it is not that the intellect is denied or
feeling is denied. They are in it, but now in a different harmony. Nothing is negated. Everything is there,

but now in a different pattern. The whole being is participating -- is in it -- has become it.

So when you listen, just listen as if you have become the listening. When I am saying something, let it

go into you not with a fight, not with a sympathy, but with a totality. Be it! Let it go. Vibrate -- with no
resistance, with no feeling, but with totality! Experiment with it, and you will begin to experience a new
dimension of listening. And that goes not only for listening: it is for everything. You can eat that way, you
can walk that way, you can sleep that way -- you can live that way!

Kabir sends his son, Kamal, to the field one day. Kabir's cows have no food today, so he sends Kamal to

cut some grass from the field. Kamal goes and has not returned. The afternoon has come and the evening
has come, and Kabir is just waiting and the cows are hungry. Where has Kamal gone? So Kabir goes to find
out.

Kamal is standing in a grass field. The sun is setting, the wind is blowing, the grass is moving wavelike,

and Kamal is standing there moving wavelike just with the grass. The whole day has passed like that, and
Kabir comes and says, "Have you gone mad. Kamal? What are you doing?"

Suddenly Kamal is brought back to a different world and he says, "Oh, I had forgotten that I am Kamal;

I became just grass. I was not! I became just grass! I moved with it, I danced with it, and I forgot for what I
had come here. Now tell me, for what had I come?"
Kabir says, "To cut the grass!"

So Kamal laughs and says, "How can one cut oneself? Today it is not possible. I will come again and

try, but I cannot promise because I have known a different realm. A different world has opened before me."

Kabir, on this day, named him Kamal. Kamal means "a miracle".
This is the miracle! If you can be totally in anything, the miracle happens. And this is not only for

listening: it is for everything. Be total! Move totally! Don't divide yourself. Never divide yourself. Any
division is just wasting your energy, any division is just suicidal. Don't divide! If you love, love totally --
don't withhold. If you listen, listen totally -- don't withhold anything. Just move totally.

Only this total movement can bring you to a realization where ego cannot be found. It can be found with

intellect. it can be found with feeling -- but never with your total being. It can be found with intellect
because intellect has no center of its own. It will not allow the center of the total to come into operation, so
the intellect has to create its own center. It becomes the ego. Feeling will not allow the total, so feeling has
its own center -- it becomes the ego.

That's why men and women have different types of egos, because man's ego is intellect-centered and

woman's ego is feeling-centered. They have different qualities of ego. And that's why a man can never
understand a woman, a woman never understands a man. They have different types of centers and different
languages.

When intellect says yes, it means yes. When emotion says yes, it does not necessarily mean yes. When

emotion says no, it may mean yes; it may just be an invitation to be persuaded more. And if you take a
woman at her word, you will be in difficulty because her word is not an intellectual assertion. It has a
different way of movement, a different quality. Intellect has a direct, mathematical ego. You can understand
it easily. So to understand a man is not very difficult because the logic is straight: two and two make four.
To understand a woman is different because the logic is not straight. It moves in circles, so two and two
never make four. They can make anything, but never four! The logic moves in a circle. Emotion moves in a
circle; logic and intellect move in a straight line.

When something moves in a circle, you can never be certain because it may mean just the contrary.

Soon it will move in a circle, and it will be the opposite of its own assertion. So with a woman one has to be
aware not of what she has said but of what she means. The actual assertion is not to be given much
importance -- what she means. And the meaning may be something very different.

So it has always happened that very intellectual persons have never been at ease with their wives --

never! Socrates, a very intelligent person, an intellectual genius, knew every nook and corner of logic, but
was never at ease with his wife, Xanthippe -- never. He could not understand what she was saying! That is,
he understood what she was saying, but he never understood what she meant. He was so logical that he
always missed the point. He went direct, straight, and she went in circles.

Intellect has its own ego -- direct, straight; emotion has its own ego -- circular. They both have egos. But

the totality has no ego. The totality has individuality. So when you reach totality, you are neither man nor
woman. You are both and you are neither. You transcend and comprehend both. That is what is meant by
ARDHANARISHWAR -- half-man, half-woman: a deep communion inside happens. You have become
total, one, with no division.

One thing you must note: this is not a fixed arrangement. When I say that a man has an intellectual ego,

it is not a fixed arrangement. In some moments he may just regress to an emotional ego; in some moments a
woman may come up to an intellectual ego. Then things are more confused. When a man is in difficulty, he
will just regress to an emotional ego. He will begin to weep and begin to talk in ways which are not even
comprehensible to him. And he will say later on, "What happens I cannot say! In spite of myself I begin to
weep; I begin to act in ways in which I would not like to act." A very strong man, in a particular situation,
may begin to behave in a very emotional way. And a very emotional woman, in a particular situation, may
begin to behave very manlike. In a different setting the ego may change from one center to another. That
creates even more difficulties -- but one has to be aware.

With feeling or with intellect, the ego is bound to be there. Only with totality is there no ego. So this I

give you as a criterion: If you are and you don't feel any "I", you are total. You are sitting here: listen as if
there is no "I" in you. Ears are there, a listening process is there, your consciousness is there, but no "I",
then you are total. How can you be divided without an "I"? Without an ego, how can you be divided? The
ego is the division.

And just as I said that there are many personalities, there are also many egos. Each center has its own

ego. Intellect has its own, emotion has its own, the sex center has its own ego -- its own "I". If you go deep
down into the bio-structure of the body, each cell has its own ego. That is the division. If you are without an
ego, if just you are, with no "I-feeling" anywhere, then you are total. And in that totalness -- even for a
single moment if you are total -- you will be Awakened suddenly. And then anything can Awaken you --
anything!

A Zen nun is carrying an earthen water-pot from the well. For thirty years she has been in this

monastery -- working continuously, meditating, making every effort to achieve a tranquillity. a state of
stillness where the Truth can reflect. But it has not come.

Suddenly the water-pot falls down and is broken, shattered. She stands there, sees it shatter, and the

water flows out -- and she is Awakened. Suddenly she achieves the Enlightenment. She runs. she dances,
goes into the temple. Her Master comes and touches her feet and says, "Now you are a Buddha: you have
achieved."

But the nun asks, "Tell me, how did this happen? -- because I tried and tried and tried continuously for

thirty years, and it was not happening. And this morning I decided that this seems just absurd and it will not
come, so I left every effort. So why, this day, has this happened?"

The Master says, "Because for the first time you were total and without an ego. Effort creates an ego.

The very effort was the barrier. Now, without any effort, without any motive, without any ambition, you
were just carrying a water-pot and suddenly the pot falls -- bang! -- the pot has fallen and broken, and
suddenly you become aware, with no ego. And the very listening the very breaking of the pot, the
shattering, the noise, the flowing of the water, and you there without any ego, listening totally -- the thing
has happened!"
So when I say listen totally, I mean this.

OSHO, WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS AND INDICATIONS THAT SHOW WHETHER ONE HAS
REACHED THE AUTHENTIC AND REAL COSMIC SOUND AUM?

It is a difficult question -- difficult because the happening is always inside, in a way private. And you

cannot know of it or about it from the outside. You can never decide from the outside whether someone has
achieved the cosmic sound AUM. The deeper you go, the more private is the happening. The public world
from where you can decide is just outside. So how to decide whether one has achieved the cosmic sound,
whether one has gone to the deepest ground, has known?

You cannot decide it from the outside; that is one thing. Of course, many things which can be known

from the outside will begin to happen through the person who has reached. But still. the feeling that he has
reached the cosmic ground will just be an inference -- an inference from his behaviour. And behaviour can
be false; behaviour can be imitated. Buddha walks a certain way; Buddha sleeps a certain way; Buddha talks
a certain way. You can imitate it without being a Buddha. And sometimes it happens that you can imitate
better than Buddha -- mm? -- because Buddha is just unaware. Whatsoever is happening is just happening.
So you can imitate it in a better way; you can practise it; you can become an expert. And Buddha may not

even be able to compete with you because he may not ever have repeated anything.

So from outside, imitation is possible -- very easily possible. To achieve the authentic is arduous; to

imitate is easy -- very easy, because inside you remain the same; just outside you can create. So it is
difficult. It is difficult to say from outside what has happened inside. One thing: you cannot decide from
outside. But from inside if you ask, "How can I know whether I have achieved the cosmic sound AUM or
not?" -- if you ask this, then I will say that when you achieve it you know it. If someone asks, "How can I
know whether I am alive or dead? How can I know?" what will we say to him? We will say that even if you
can think this much -- whether you are alive or dead -- you are alive.

When you come to the cosmic sound, to the very ground of being; when you hear the AUM -- not

uttered by you, not uttered by anyone, but just as a cosmic sound all around -- you know. The phenomenon
is so real that, really, the question never arises whether this AUM, this sound, is real. The question arises
whether I am real now or not. You fade, you become just unreal. You become just a phantom, a ghost. Now
your reality is not like it has ever been. All around, the real is.

But it may even be a dream. You also feel in a dream that everything is real, so how to decide whether

this sound that you are hearing is a dream or a reality? The decision comes from a certain source. You will
never be the same again -- the before and after. This hearing of the sound will be a discontinuity in your
existence. You will never be the same again. You will not even be able to connect yourself with your past; it
will just drop. You will only remember it as if it belonged to someone else. Your memory will not be yours
now. After this experience you will be reborn, and your rebirth will be the evidence. You will never be the
same again. The old has dropped; you cannot find the old man again. It is nowhere now. It was there. it is
now not there. For you this will be the evidence that you have heard.

But I think there is a third implication also. One can go on repeating AUM, so how will one find out

whether the AUM one is repeating and the AUM one has come upon are different or just the same? You
will feel it, because you are the center of the AUM that you utter, and then it vibrates outside. Mm? -- this is
the dimension. You create it just as you throw a stone into a silent lake. The stone becomes the center, and
then there are waves which go outward towards the banks. When you say AUM, you create a center in
yourself: you drop a stone, and then the sound goes out and out and out, far off from you. This is the
dimension, the direction.

When you hear the sound AUM, the cosmic sound, it is different. It comes; it never goes. It is not a

going away from you: it is a coming to you. And the center is nowhere to be found. It just goes on coming
and coming and coming and coming. You are overflowed with it. You see the difference? You are not the
center. Rather, you are the bank, and from some unknown center the sound waves come to you. They go on
coming, they never stop. So this direction -- the sound center you, and the waves going outward -- is AUM
uttered by you. You not as the center, and sound waves coming and coming and coming from somewhere --
the center is never known and will never be known....

Someone asked Jacob Boehme, "Where is the center of God? Where is the center of the universe?" He

said, "Either everywhere or nowhere." Both mean the same.

So when you begin to feel that the AUM is coming to you... let me say it in a different way. Ordinarily,

seekers go towards the Divine, but until the Divine comes to you, remember, you may just be in a fantasy,
just in a dream. If you go to the Divine, to God, to find the center, you will go on searching, but you will
never find it.

How can you find the center? The center can only come to you. So it is always a false relationship -- the

seeker going towards God. The real relationship is completely different -- God coming to the seeker. When
you are ready, He comes. When you are open, He becomes the guest. When your invitation is valid, total,
He is there. It is always a coming, never a going. So, really, there is not a phenomenon of man in search of
God, but, rather, it is God in search of man.

But you are hiding, escaping, so He cannot find you. Wherever He comes, you escape. You are a

closing, never an opening. He goes on knocking, and your doors are shut. So when this AUM begins to
come, when it is a coming to you, you are just filled, you are just bathed in it -- and the source is not found.
If you can find the source, again it may be that someone is creating the sound from outside -- and it is
coming! Someone may be playing AUM on some instrument, and it is coming.

There is no source of it. That's why mystics have always said that God is the sourceless One. There is no

source. It comes as if from nowhere -- just out of the blue -- and it is here. When you feel this, then you
know that the AUM is now cosmic. It doesn't belong to you.

In Zen they use koans -- puzzles, absurd puzzles -- as meditation objects. Rinzai always gave to his

disciples the koan of hearing the sound of one hand clapping. It is impossible! How can you hear the sound
of one hand? So whenever seekers would be there he would say, "First go and find out what is the sound of
one hand clapping. Hear it! and then come to me and tell me."

It looks absurd, but when a man like Rinzai would say this to someone, the person would go, close the

door, sit down in meditation, and he would think. Then he would come within hours and say, "What
nonsense you have asked! How can it be?"

Rinzai would say, "I have heard it, so you go and again try. I also said to my Teacher, 'How is this

possible?' but he said, 'I have heard, so you try.' And I tried, and now I have heard. So you try -- and it will
come."

The person would go on coming. Every morning he would have a DARSHAN -- go to see his Teacher --

and then the Teacher would ask, "Have you heard?"

He would say, "No, I have not heard yet." The Teacher would tell him to try harder. So he would begin

to imagine the sound. because it is very frustrating to go every day with nothing to show to the Teacher. So
he would say, "Oh yes, I have heard it. It is just like wind passing through leaves."

But the Teacher would say, "No, it is not, because wind and leaves are two things. It must be of one.

Wind passing through leaves is just an ordinary sound. Two things can create friction, so it is still of two
hands. You cannot befool me! Wind passing through the trees -- it is of two hands. Never come again unless
you hear the sound of one hand!"

And he would come, and again and again he would say, "I have heard this and that, or I have heard the

sound of the water-drops falling on the roof." With so many things he would come, and he would be denied.
And this would go on for months.

Then suddenly one day Rinzai asked, "Where is that man? He has not come and it has been so long. Go

and find out what he is doing."

He was found in his cell or under some tree just lost, and he was brought to the Teacher. And the

Teacher said, "Now you have heard. Haven't you heard?"
And he said, "I have heard! I have heard!"

What sound has he heard? There is only one sound: that is the sound of the cosmic AUM which is

without friction -- not two things, but simply the sound. It is not created by any clapping.

The moment someone says, "I have heard," he will be a different person. You cannot be the same again.

Mm? And the difference will always be: sound coming to you from nowhere -- sourceless sound, uncreated.
Then it is the cosmic AUM.

The Ultimate Alchemy, Vol 1

Chapter #3

Chapter title: Desirelessness: An Opening to the Unknown

17 February 1972 pm in Bombay, India

Archive code: 7202175

ShortTitle: ULTAL103

Audio:

Yes

Video:

No

Length: 98 mins

SARVA KARMA NIRAAKARANAM AAWAHANAM
CESSATION OF THE CAUSE OF ALL ACTIONS IS AAWAHANAM -- THE INVOCATION.

RELIGION is not ritual. Really, when a religion dies it becomes ritual: the dead body of a religion

becomes the ritual. But everywhere ritual is to be found. If you go to find religion, you will find ritual. All
these names -- Hindu, Mohammedan, Christian -- these are not the names of religions, they are names of
particular rituals. By "ritual" I mean something done outwardly in order to create the inward revolution.
This belief, that something done outwardly can create an inward revolution, creates rituals.

Why does this belief come into existence? It comes because of a very natural phenomenon. Whenever

there is inward revolution, whenever there is inner mutation, whenever there is some inner transformation, it
is followed by many outward things and sign -- sit is bound to be, because the inward exists in relation to
the outward. Nothing can happen inside which will not affect the outside also. It will have effects,
consequences, shadows, on the outside behaviour also. If you feel anger inside, your body begins to take
certain postures. If you begin to feel silence inside, your body will take certain other postures. When there is
silence inside, the body will show it in many ways. The silence, the inner peace, the stillness, will be shown
by the body in many ways. But this is always secondary. The inner is basic and the outer is secondary. It is a
consequence, not a cause.

Whenever this happens, for example, if a Buddha happens to be here, we cannot see what is happening

inside him. But we can see, we will see, what is happening outside. For Buddha himself, the inner is the
cause and the outer the consequence. For us, the outer will be the first thing to be noticed and then the inner
will be inferred. So for onlookers, the outer, the secondary, becomes the basic, the primary.

How can we know what has happened in Buddha's inner consciousness? But we can observe his body,

his movements, his gestures. They are related to the inner; they show something -- but they are related not
as causes but as consequences. So you cannot go back. The vice versa will not be true. If the inner is there,
the outer will follow. But the vice versa is not true: if the outer is there, there is no necessity that the inner
should follow -- there is no necessity.

For example, if I am angry, then my body will show anger, but I can show anger in my body without

being angry at all. An actor is doing that. He is expressing anger through his eyes, through his hands; he is
expressing love -- without feeling anything inside. He is showing fear, his whole body is trembling and
shaking, but there is no fear inside.

So the outer can be without the inner. We can impose it. There is no reason, there is no basis, no

necessity, no inevitability, that the inner should follow the outer. The outer always follows the inner, but
never the vice versa. Ritual is born because of this fallacy.

We see a Buddha sitting in a silent posture -- in siddhasan, the most relaxed posture for the body. This

posture is a consequence of an inner quietude. It is there because the consciousness has become so still that
the body follows it, and the body spontaneously takes the most relaxed posture. But for us the body is the
first thing to be noticed. We see the body first so we say that Buddha achieved Liberation in this posture.
Really, quite the reverse is the case: because Buddha achieved Liberation, this posture followed! This
posture is not a cause. So you can practise the posture, you can become efficient in the posture -- but don't
wait for the Liberation to come. The posture will be there, but Liberation will not come.

Someone is praying. His hands are raised or his head is surrendered unto some unknown feet. This is an

outward posture. When surrendering really happens inside, this posture follows. When surrendering
happens inside, when one begins to feel a nothingness, when one begins to feel just to dissolve into the
Infinite, this posture follows. You can imitate the posture, but surrendering will not follow.

And when I say this posture follows, I don't mean that it is bound to follow for everyone. With every

individual there will be differences. It will depend on the culture, on the upbringing, on the climate, on
many things. There is no intrinsic necessity for the posture to follow. What will follow will depend on
many, many things. For example, if Buddha is not born in India but in a culture, in a society. where no one
sits on the ground, do you think Enlightenment will not come to him? It will come on a chair! Of course,
when he is sitting in a chair, he will sit in a different way. When Enlightenment comes to him, he will
totally relax. But that relaxation will be different, outwardly, from a siddhasan.

Mahavir achieved Liberation in a very strange posture! It is known as goduhasan, the posture of a

cowherd milking a cow -- the same posture as a cowherd milking a cow. In that posture Mahavir was
Enlightened. Never before and never afterwards has anyone achieved Liberation in that posture. He was not
milking a cow! Why did this happen? It must have something to do with Mahavir's own bodily habits; it
might be concerned with his past incarnations. Nothing is known about why this happened.

But the basic thing is that outward things follow some inward happenings. They, too, are not fixed laws.

From individual to individual they differ. It depends; it depends on many things. But the society begins to

feel a necessary connection, a cause-effect connection, between outward things and inward. Then the ritual
is born. "Ritual" means that we will do something outward and the inner will follow. This is the most
fallacious thing possible. This fallacy destroys every religion, and every religion ultimately becomes just a
ritualistic nonsense.

In this Upanishad, this ritualistic understanding is denied totally, but denied in a very positive way. So

one thing must be understood very distinctly and clearly.

The Upanishads were born in a very revolutionary period as far as the Indian mind is concerned. There

was a great rebellion against the Vedas. And when I say against the Vedas, I mean the ritualistic structure
that was built around the Vedas. It was a dead ritual; everything was a ritual. Religion was not something
deep, not something concerned with consciousness and its transformation. Rather, it was just concerned
with doing something: "If you do this, then you will get this if you do that, then you will get that." And
every ritual was fixed as if it was a science: "Do this prayer and there will be rain; do this prayer and the
enemy will be killed; do this prayer and you will be victorious -- do this and this will follow." And this was
proposed as if it was a science.

This ritualistic structure killed the very progressive spirit of the Indian mind. A revolution followed: it

was bound to follow. It took two shapes. One was negative -- Jain and Buddhist. These two thinking climes
took a very negative turn. They said, "Rituals are meaningless, absurd, so all rituals should be abolished."
This was an absolutely negative attitude. The Upanishads were also against rituals, but they took a very
positive attitude. They said, "Ritual is not absurd, but you misunderstand the meaning of it."

This sutra is concerned with a yagna ritual, AAWAHANAM -- invocation. The word AAWAHANAM

-- invocation -- means that before you begin any worship, any yagna, any prayer, first invoke the deities,
first call them. AAWAHANAM means: invite them, invoke them. As far as it goes it is good. How can you
pray unless you have invited? How can you surrender unless you have invoked?

So these are the ways. The negative way will be that it is useless because there are no deities -- first.

Second: they have no names even if there are. Third: even if they have names they will not respond, because
whatsoever you are doing is just bribery, just flattery. Do you think that by your flattery, by your prayers, by
your briberies, you will be able to invoke them? And if you think that you can invoke them and call them
and invite them, then they are not even worth it -- because if you can bribe them, then they are just like you.
The language is the same and the level also, so they are not worth it.

Buddha has said: "There are no deities; and even if there are, they are not higher than human beings.

They are not higher! You can persuade them, you can bribe them through your flattery -- stuti. You can
force them to do something or not to do something, so they are not higher than you. They can be just
forgotten."

The Upanishads take a very different attitude. They say that deities are there and invocation is possible,

but they give a much deeper meaning to invocation. They say:

CESSATION OF THE CAUSE OF ALL ACTIONS IS INVOCATION.

They don't deny anything. They give a new meaning, and the ritual becomes non-ritualistic. They say:

"Of course, invocation is possible, but by invocation is meant CESSATION OF THE CAUSE OF ALL
ACTIONS."

They say the same thing the Buddha also says. Buddha denies. He says, "There is no invocation. The

only path is to be desireless, so don't ask for any help from anyone. No one can help you. Just be desireless
and you will attain the Nirvana, the bliss, the peace, the Ultimate. So don't ask anyone's help; don't invoke
anyone. Just be desireless."

And this becomes even more pertinent because a person who is invoking a deity is invoking him

because of some desire. He wants something -- money, prestige, victory, anything. He is invoking the deity,
praying, for something. So Buddha says, "You are just running from one desire to another, and this running
after desires is the DUKKHA -- is the misery. And no one can help you unless you become desireless."

"Cessation of the cause of all actions" means to be desireless.
What is the cause of action? Why are you involved in so much action? Why this constant running? What

is the cause? Desire is the cause. So in a very poetic way the Upanishad denies the ritual and yet not the
term; denies the ritual, yet not the spirit.

Buddha failed because a negative mind cannot really succeed for long. He can be very appealing

because negativity strikes hard. He can be very logical because to say no is the very spirit of logic -- of
being logical. Really, whenever you want to say no you need logic. If you want to say yes, logic is not
needed, reason is not needed. You can say yes without any reasoning, but you cannot say no without any
reasoning. The moment you say no, logic will be required, so no is always logical.

A modern logician, De Bono, says that the purpose of logic is really to say no in a reasonable way, in a

rational way. The very purpose of logic is to say no and then to adduce reasons, proofs, for saying no.
Buddha said no; it appealed. His approach was logical, rational, everything was perfect -- but yet he couldn't
get roots in the Indian soil. He was uprooted soon. And this is a very strange fact: that he could get Found in
China, in Japan, in Burma, in Ceylon, everywhere in Asia except India. But the secret is that the Buddhist
monks learned their error when they left India. The no was the error, so they never used negative attitudes
anywhere else. They became positive. In China they began to say yes: in Ceylon they have said yes. Then
everywhere they succeeded because yes has a very magical secret of success.

It may not appeal to reason: it appeals to the heart. And in the end heart wins -- never reason! Really,

reason never wins in the end. You can silence someone with logical reasoning, but you can never convert
him, you can never change him. Even if he cannot say anything against you, he will still be convinced of his
own mind. Unless the yes is evoked, he cannot be converted. So Buddha tried hard, but with a no --
everywhere no. Whatsoever he was saying was the same as the Upanishad is saying. It was not a bit
different. Only the methodology he chose was negative, and the reason might be that he was a Kshatriya -- a
warrior -- and a warrior lives with a no.

The Upanishads came through Brahmins. They were beggars, and a beggar lives with a yes. Even if you

deny him, a real beggar, an authentic beggar, will bless you. He lives with a total yes: that is his secret. He
cannot use no. And a warrior, a Kshatriya, can use yes only when he is defeated, and then too from his heart
he will never say yes. He will continue to say no. All the Jain teerthankers were Kshatriyas. Buddha was a
Kshatriya. They both took negative attitudes.

The Upanishads are based on a positive yes. They are yea-sayers. Even if they have to say no, they will

say it in such a way that yes is used. Really, this Upanishad is saying there is no AAWAHANAM, no
invocation, but no is not used at all. They turn it into a yes. They say, "Cessation of the cause of all actions
is the invocation." It is not related at all with the invocation of the Vedas, with the priests. It is not related at
all! It is related to the same rebellious teaching which says that being desireless is the ultimate state of
purity. And unless you are pure, how can you invite the Divine?

Really, being pure is the invitation. No other invitation is needed. The moment you are pure, the

moment the heart is pure, the Divine comes. Just being pure is the invitation; So don't call, don't cry for the
Divine. Just be pure and He will come.

How can this purity be achieved and why are we impure? What is the reason? The Indian genius has

always been thinking in terms of desire and desirelessness. Really, everything that we are can be reduced to
desire; whatsoever we are is because of our desire. If we are miserable, if we are in bondage, if we are
ignorant, if we are in darkness, if life is just a long death, it is because of desire.

Why is there misery? Because your desire is frustrated. Unless you have a desire, how can it be

frustrated? So if you want to be frustrated, desire more; then you will be more frustrated. If you want to be
in misery, then expect more, desire more, be ambitious for more, and you will get more misery. If you don't
want to be miserable, then don't desire.

So this is the mathematics of inner workings: desire creates misery. If desire fails, it necessarily creates

misery. But even if desire succeeds, it again creates misery -- because the moment you succeed, your desire
has gone ahead, it is asking for more. Really, the desire is always ahead of you. Wherever you reach, it will
be ahead of you. And you will never reach the point where you and your desire can meet; that is impossible.
Desire means something always in the future, never in the present. You are always in the present and desire
is always in the future. And wherever you are, you will be in the present and desire will always be in the
future.

It is just like the horizon. You see just a few miles to where the sky is touching the earth, and it looks so

real. But go ahead and find the place where the sky touches the earth, and the more you go ahead, the more
the horizon goes ahead. The distance remains always the same because, really, it never touches anywhere.
The touching, the contact line, is just false. So when you go to seek the horizon, you will never find it. It
will always remain there, but you will never meet it. And you can continue to be in the illusion that the
horizon is there -- a little distance more to be traversed. You may go around the whole earth and come back
to your home never meeting the horizon anywhere, but the illusion can continue.

Desire is just like the horizon. It seems as if it can be fulfilled soon. The distance is not much: "Just a

little more effort, just a bit of fast running, and it is just near!" But you never reach it. It is always just near
and the distance remains the same. Howsoever you run, the distance remains the same!

Has any desire been fulfilled ever? Don't ask others, ask yourself. Have you realized any desire ever?

But we don't even wait to think about it. We have no time to think about the past; the future obsesses us. We
are in such a hurry to reach the horizon, who will think that we have missed this horizon so many times?
There is no time to think. The hurry is such, and life is so short, and one has to run and go on running! Have
you achieved anything through any desire or does frustration always come? Aren't ashes always in the hand
and nothing else? But one never sees the ashes in the hand, one never sees the frustration. The eyes are
always again fixed on the far-off horizon.

This fixation with the horizon is the cause of all actions. And no action reaches a fulfillment -- because

our actions are just mad! If the horizon itself is not there, then your running is mad. So desire is the cause of
all actions and of all misery, of all impurity and of all ignorance.

Cessation of the cause -- cessation of desiring -- is the invocation. If you cease to desire, then there will

be no running -- no running after anything, no movement inside, no ripples -- just a silent pool of
consciousness, a silent pool without waves, without ripples. No movement! The Upanishads say this state of
consciousness is the invocation.

But does it mean that all actions cease when desire ceases?because we have seen a Krishna moving,

doing many things. We have seen a Buddha doing many things even after the Enlightenment. So what does
cessation of the cause of all actions mean? It doesn't mean cessation of all actions. It means cessation of the
cause. The desire ceases. And when there is no desire, actions begin to take an altogether different quality.
When there is no desire, then action becomes just a play -- with no madness in it, with no insanity behind it,
with no obsession. It becomes just a play -- a playfulness.

Really, the modern psychiatrists say that this is a criterion as to whether someone is insane or sane. An

insane person cannot play. Even if he plays, he will become so serious about it that the play will become a
work. And real sanity consists in transforming even work into play. When there is no desire you can play --
and if nothing comes out of it, there is no frustration because nothing was expected. The play in itself was
enough. That is the difference between work and play.

Work is never enough unto itself; it is always meant for some result. The result has a real value, the end,

and work is only a means. You work to achieve something; no one works for work's sake. So work is in the
present and the result is always in the future, and it all depends on the result. Work in itself is just a burden
to be carried somehow, because it is the end that is to be achieved. If you can achieve the end without the
work, you will never work.

Play has a different dimension -- altogether different, diametrically opposite. There is really no result to

be achieved. Play is for play's sake. But we have become so insane that we cannot even play for play's sake.
So even through play we try to achieve some result, to win something -- prestige, medals, anything, but
something must be there as an end to be achieved. So, really, grown-ups never play; only children play --
with nothing beyond. That's why the play of children has an innocence and a beauty: the thing is enough
unto itself!

When a child is playing, he is absorbed totally in it -- not a single desire out of it, running and going

somewhere; not a bit of consciousness beyond it; everything is in it. The child has become just the play,
totally involved, committed to this moment here and now. Nothing exists beyond it. This is action, but
without the cause. without desire.

That's why we have called this world not really a creation of the Divine, but a leela, a play of the Divine,

because "creation" is not a good word, it is ugly. It is ugly because you create something for something. No,
the Divine is only playing -- just playing like a child with no result in the mind. The play itself is blissful.
So to say: "Cessation of the cause of all actions is invocation," means to be just like a child -- innocent,
pure, without any desire. Then you have invoked the Divine. Then you have called, invited.

Now your invocation cannot be denied: it is so authentic and so sincere. Really, now you need not even

invoke and the Divine will be there, you need not even call and the Divine will be there -- because you have
created the situation! The Divine will flow, come down. You have created the situation -- the purity of the
heart. This is the only invocation. All else is, again, just desire, action.

Jesus says that unless you are like a child you cannot enter into the Kingdom of the Divine. "Like a

child": what does it mean? It means that you are capable of playing, that you are capable of action without
desire.

For us it is inconceivable. How can we act without desire? Take the opposite case: can you desire

without action? You can desire! You can desire without action, so desire can exist alone without action.
Mm? -- everyone is desiring, there are many, many desires without any actions. So desire can be without
action: this is our experience. Why not the opposite? Why can't actions be without desire? If desire can be
severed from action, why not action from desire? That too is possible. And when desire is not there, action
doesn't cease: it becomes different. The flavour is different; the intrinsic quality is different. The madness is
not there; and this very moment, the present, has become meaningful -- not the future.

So take this to heart: if the future is very meaningful to you, you cannot invoke. If the present is the only

significance and the future doesn't exist at all, then you have invoked. The future is the bondage because
without the future you cannot desire. Desire needs space in which to move. It cannot move just in the
present; the present has no space. It cannot move! How can you desire for just now? You can desire only in
the tomorrow. Really, the future is created because of our desiring -- there is no future, the future doesn't
exist.

Ordinarily, we say that time has three divisions -- past, present and future. Really, time has only one,

and that is the present. The past is that which is not; the future is that which is not yet. They both are not.
Past only means desires that are dead, and future means desires that are still alive -- and the present is
untouched by your past and by your future.

So, really, past and future are not divisions of time, but parts of mind. Time is the present; mind is the

past and future. Mind has two divisions: past and future; and time has only one: the present. That's why
mind and time never meet. They cannot meet because mind has no present, and time has no past and no
future. If there were no mind on the earth, would there be any future or past? There would be only the
present. Flowers, of course, would flower, but in the present. Trees would, of course, grow, but in the
present. There would be;no past and no future. With men, or rather with mind, comes past and future.
Really, if you look into a child he has no past. How can he have? That's why he is never burdened --
because the past becomes a burden.

An old man is always burdened. There is a past -- a long past -- so many dead desires, so many

frustrations, so many horizons never found, so many rainbows just broken. He has a long past and he is just
burdened. An old man is always thinking about the past, remembering, going again and again into the
memory. An old man, by and by, begins to forget the future -- because now the future only means death and
nothing else. So he never tries to look into the future: he begins to look back. A child is always looking
forward, never back, because there is nothing to look back to. For an old man there is only death to look to
in the future and nothing else.

A young man is in the present, so a young man cannot understand children and he cannot understand old

men. They both look just foolish -- both! Children look foolish because they are unnecessarily wasting their
time, unnecessarily playing with toys. An old man just looks dead, just worried unnecessarily. A young man
cannot understand really, because he cannot see what has happened to an old man -- that he is now only the
past. This happens.

But every young man will become old, and every child will become young, and every old man was once

young and once a child -- because the mind moves, it goes on moving. In children it has a vast expanse to
move. With an old mind it has no expanse to move further. But this is movement of the mind, not of time.

Really, we think that time is moving. No, we are moving! We just go on moving: time is not moving at

all. Time is the present; time is always here and now. It has always been here and now; it will always be
here and now. We go on moving. We move from past to future, and for us time is just a bridge to move from
the past into the future -- from one desire to another desire, time is just a passage. For us, time is just a
passage to move from one desire to another. If desires cease, then your movement will cease. And if your
movement ceases, you will meet with time here and now -- and that meeting is the door. That meeting is the
door; that meeting is the invocation.

But when the Upanishad says, "Cessation of the cause..." does it mean to say, "Do not desire"? It is very

natural for our minds to translate things like that. If the Upanishad says, "Cessation of the cause of all
actions... " it means a state of desirelessness. Remember it: a state of desirelessness! But our minds will
translate it as: "Do not desire!" You have missed the point if you translate it as "Do not desire!" because
even if you do not desire, you will desire. Your "Do not desire" will imply desire. You may desire to invoke
the Divine, you may desire to be purified, to be pure, to be innocent, childlike, to reach that realm of play.
So your mind can say to you, "If you want to enter the Kingdom of God, do not desire!"

This is a desire. This is how desire works: "If you want to get into the Kingdom of God, if you want

Enlightenment, if you want a meeting with the Divine -- do not desire!" So this is the logic of desire. "Do
not do this if you want that; do this if you want that." So when I say "a state of desirelessness", I don't mean
a commandment which says, "Do not desire!"

Then what do I mean? It becomes difficult, complex to understand. Then what do I mean when I say "a

state of desirelessness"? It means: understand desire, understand the fallaciousness of desire, understand the
absurdity of desire, the futility of it, the nonsense of it. Just understand what desire has done, what desire
can do, what desire is doing. Just understand desire! And if you understand it totally, you will be desireless.
That desirelessness will be just an outcome of your understanding. It cannot be anything out of your action.
That "do not" is again an action.

This translation of things creates many unnecessary problems. So I have seen people who say, "Do not

be greedy if you want to achieve the Divine," but they never feel that this is greed -- and a greater one. This
is a most extraordinary greed, rare. One wants to achieve the Divine, so one must not be greedy. What does
greed mean? Not to be greedy means not to desire, not to want. But you are wanting the Divine, moksha, so:
"Don't be greedy. If you want to possess the Divine, then don't possess anything else. Be non-possessive!
Renounce if you want to get!" This renouncing becomes just a step to get, so it is just a methodology -- but
you are for getting.

Really, unless you cease this craving to get, you will never be mature. So look at it in this way: a child is

born and the first state of mind is one of getting. The child is getting everything -- the milk, the food, the
love. He is not giving anything: he is just getting. This is the most immature state of mind -- just getting.
And when an old man is also trying to get, he has remained just an immature person. It is okay for a child to
be in a state of constant getting; he is getting everything. The child cannot even conceive of what giving
means. So when you say to a child, "Give your toy to this boy," he cannot even conceive of what you mean.
The language is unknown, the language of giving is unknown. He can only get.

You have to train the child according to his language. So you say, "Give this toy to this boy, then I will

give you more love." Now you have to translate even giving into getting. "If you don't give, then we will not
give you love." So a child begins to learn that if you want to get you will have to give. This giving becomes
just a stepping-stone to get more. This is the state of our minds always; then we remain just immature. We
are in a state of getting. If sometimes we have to give, it is only to get something else.

This purity of heart means quite the opposite of getting -- just giving. That is the most mature mind. A

child, the immature mind, is always concerned with getting. A Buddha, a Jesus, is always giving. That is the
other extreme giving not to get something, but giving because giving is a play, a bliss in itself. When I say
understand desire, I mean understand getting, understand giving. Understand that your state is just of
getting, getting and getting, and you will never be fulfilled -- mm? -- because there is no end.

Understand this: what have you got through this constant, eternal getting? What have you got? You are

as poor as ever, as much a beggar as ever -- rather, more. The more you get. the more you become a greater
beggar, the more is the desire to get. So you only learn by getting, more getting. Where have you reached?
What have you found? What is there which you can say is the achievement of this constant, mad getting?
Nothing!

If you can understand this, the very understanding becomes a transformation: the getting drops. And the

moment getting drops, a new dimension opens: you begin to give. And this is the paradox: you have not got
anything through getting -- but when you give, you get. But that "get" is not concerned with your getting at
all. The giving itself is a deep achievement, a deep fulfillment.

But when I am saying this, I am afraid you may again translate it. You may say, "Okay! So to achieve

that fulfillment, we must leave this constant desire to get." Understand this; don't translate it. Your mind can
distort anything. It has distorted everything. It distorts a Buddha, it distorts a Krishna, it distorts a Jesus, it
distorts a Zarathustra -- it goes on distorting. They say something, you translate it, and then it is something
else altogether different -- diametrically opposite even.

The understanding of desire becomes desirelessness; the knowing of desire is the cessation of desire. So

know deeply, understand deeply. Don't take any hurried step, and then a purity is discovered which is
always there, which has always been there. The heart is pure already, but only covered with desires, with
smoke, and you cannot look deep.

This is invocation: if you are pure you have invoked. So be pure and the Divine will be invoked.

Nothing else is needed; not even a belief in the Divine is needed. You need not believe that there is Divine
energy. You need not believe that there is anything -- no need. Just be pure, and you will come to know.
The Divine is not a belief -- it is a knowledge, a knowing.

But when I say "purity" you may again misunderstand me, because for "purity" we have very moralistic

connotations. We say a man is pure because he is moral, a man is pure because he is not a thief, a man is
pure because he is not dishonest, a man is pure because he lives under the rules and regulations of his
society. But if the society itself is impure, then by living according to its rules and regulations how can you
be pure? And if the society itself is dishonest, then by following it how can you be honest? If the whole
foundation and structure is just immoral, then to adjust to it is the most immoral act possible.

So, really, it happens that the more moral a person is, the more he goes against the society -- because he

cannot adjust! A Jesus has to be crucified: he becomes "immoral" -- because the whole society is immoral.
A Socrates has to be poisoned. Why? Because a really moral man cannot exist in an immoral society.

And whenever an immoral society pays respect to someone and says that he is moral, it means only that

he is adjusted and nothing else -- adjusted to the society. Whatsoever the society has said, he follows.
Really, he may be just dead. He may have no conscience of his own. He cannot assert anything. He is not --
he just follows. He becomes very moral. So for "purity" we have a very moral connotation.

No, purity means innocence, and all those persons we call moral are very cunning. They are not

innocent at all -- because if you think that to be a thief is bad, or to be a thief is not respectable, or to be a
thief you will have to suffer in hell, or by not being a thief you are going tb gain heaven, then you are very
cunning and calculating. You are not a thief because of your calculations and cunningness. And it may be
that the person who is a thief and suffering imprisonment is less cunning and less calculating. That's why he
is suffering -- he has become a thief. You are more cunning, more calculating, so you are moral and honest
-- but not pure.

Purity means innocence; innocence means a non-calculating mind. I don't mean that he will be a thief.

How can an innocent person be a thief? If he cannot calculate. how can he be a thief? Mm? -- to be a thief
one needs calculation; not to be a thief, one again needs calculation. An innocent person is neither moral nor
immoral. He is just innocent. That innocence is purity.

Jesus has been condemned for many things which his society thought immoral -- because a prostitute

invites him to come to her home and he goes. Then the whole village begins to be filled with rumours:
"Jesus has gone to a prostitute's house! Why should he go? A moral man can never go to a prostitute's
house!" And this is what you would have thought also: "Why should Jesus go there? What is the need? And
not only has he gone: he has remained the whole night!" He has slept there, and in the morning, of course,
whatever can happen in a "moral" village happens. Everyone is against him. Even his friends are not with
him now; even his followers have escaped. And the village encounters him and asks him, "Why did you go
to a prostitute s house?" And Jesus says, "Who is not a prostitute, tell me? How do you decide and how do
you judge? What are the criteria?"

This is a non-calculating person. He says he cannot judge who is a prostitute and who is not. He cannot

judge! How can he judge and who is he to judge? Here is an innocent man, a pure man. But he is to be
crucified because you cannot think that he is innocent, you cannot think that he is pure. How can he be pure
when he has slept in a prostitute's house? Our minds are really so immoral and so impure that we cannot
conceive of a different dimension of purity. And this same prostitute is the only person who remains when
Jesus is crucified. Everyone has escaped; no one is there. Only this prostitute, Mary Magdalene, is standing
there -- the only person! No apostle is there; no follower is there. They have all escaped because it is
dangerous to be there. Even they can be crucified. Only this prostitute is standing there, and this prostitute
helped to take Jesus' dead body down from the cross. So it seems pertinent to ask "Who is not a prostitute?"
And was it good for Jesus to stay with this prostitute or not? -- because only this poor woman remained with
him in the end.

What is moral and what is immoral? As far as religion is concerned, innocence is moral and cunningness

is immoral. To be innocent is enough. That childlike innocence is the purity. That purity become
AAWAHANAM -- invocation.

We have distorted everything -- every word. Every word has become just ugly. When you say that

someone is pure, what do you mean? Just find out the meaning and you will find very ugly things. By
"someone is pure", what do you mean? Innocence? Never -- because innocence can be dangerous!
Innocence may not fit into your pattern! Really, it will not fit. How can it fit? You cannot persuade it, you
cannot force it, you cannot bribe it. And the society depends on force, on bribery, on persuasion, on
punishment, on appraisal, on fear, on greed. So we say that if you do this, you will get this.

Many, many have asked Buddha, "If we follow you, what will we get?" And Buddha says, "Nothing."

So how can you follow this man? He says, "Nothing." We are always out to get something. Even from a

Buddha we want to get something -- promises: "If you promise us this, then we can do this." Then it
becomes logical to us, relevant. Buddha says, "Be pure, and you get nothing." Then why be pure? Then it is
better to be impure. At least then we are getting something. Buddha says that you have not got anything.
You are only in the illusion of getting and you will never get.

So I say just be pure and forget getting, because unless you forget getting you cannot be pure. If you

have to get something, you have to be cunning and calculating. You have to be violent, you have to be
greedy, and you have to be always in the future -- never here. Then you can never remain at home. You are
always abroad, somewhere else, always on a journey.

To be desireless, pure, is to have a deep understanding of the futility of all that we have been doing, of

all that we are. The moment this purity is there, invocation happens. Then you have called, then you have
asked and invited. Then in the very deepest core of Existence, your invitation has penetrated. Now,
suddenly, you feel that you have been taken over: someone has come into you. Now you are possessed by
something else which is more than you. Something infinite, something more vital, has come. You have been
taken over; you are flooded. For this flooding is the invocation.

Of course, you have to be open, otherwise this flooding will not happen. And an innocent mind is

always open; a cunning mind is always closed. A cunning mind is always in defense. A cunning mind
always thinks in terms of enmity, competition, because if you are to get something then you have to be a
competitor. Everyone is. Everyone is out to get, and you have to get also. Then you have to be a competitor,
and this is a very tough competition. So you have to be violent, cunning, closed, defensive. Then you cannot
be flooded by the Divine. You are so narrow, so closed, that the flood cannot come to you.

A pure heart, a desireless heart, is not competitive, not concerned for the future, not against anybody,

not for anybody, with no calculations, with no desire to get, with no achieving mind. A pure heart is here
and now, open, with no defense. When I say with no defense, I mean that even if death comes, he is open. If
you are not open for death, you will never be open for the Divine. If you are afraid of death, you will be
afraid of the Divine.

But this is strange, because whenever we are afraid of death we always go to the Divine to pray. So all

those who are praying in mosques, in temples, in churches, are really not praying: they are just afraid of
death. They are making arrangements with the Divine in order that they should not be afraid. Their prayer is
based on fear and their gods are just created out of fear.

If the mind is innocent, you can be like a child playing with a snake. Now he is open for both: death can

come and he is open; he can play with death. The Divine can come and he is open; he can play with the
Divine. Death and the Divine are, in a subtle way, one. If you are not open to death you will never be open
for the Divine, and a person who is concerned with desires is always afraid of death.

You must see the relationship: a person who is concerned with desires -- is desirous, is out to get

something -- is always afraid of death. Why? Because desire is in the future and death is also in the future,
and it may be that death comes first and desire is not fulfilled. Remember this: desire is never in the present;
death is also never in the present. No one has died in the present. Can you be fearful of death here and now?
No, because either you are alive or dead. If you are alive here and now, there is no death; and if you are
already dead, there is no fear. So you can only fear death in the future. Desires have a planning for the
future and death may disturb everything, so we are fearful of death.

No animal is afraid of death because no animal has plannings for the future. There is no other reason

than this: no plannings for the future. The future is not, so death is not! Why be afraid of death if there is no
planning for the future? Nothing is to be disturbed by death. The more you have planned, the greater the
plans, then the greater the fear. Death is not really a fear that you will die, but a fear that you will die
unfulfilled. It may not be possible to carry desires to their fulfillment, and death may come any time.

If I am to die unfulfilled, of course, there is fear: "I am as yet unfulfilled. I have not known a moment of

fulfillment, and death may come, so I have lived in vain. I have been a futility, just a uselessness. I have
lived without any fulfillment, without any peak, without any moment of truth, beauty, peace, silence. I have
just lived in futility, meaninglessness, and death may come any moment." Then death becomes a fear.

If I am fulfilled, if I have known that which life can allow one to know, if I have felt what living really

is, if I have known a single moment of beauty and love and fulfillment, where is the fear of death? Where is
the fear! Death can come. It cannot disturb anything, it cannot destroy anything. Death can only destroy the
future. For me the future is now nothing. I am content this very moment. Then death cannot do anything. I
can accept it; it may even prove to be a bliss.

So one who is open to death can be open to the divine. Openness means fearlessness. Innocence gives

you openness, fearlessness, a vulnerability with no defense arrangements. That is invocation.

And if you are just in that moment when even death can come to you -- and you receive it, embrace it,

welcome it -- then you have invoked the Divine. Now death will never come: only the Divine will come.
Even in death, death will not be there now -- only the Divine.

Marpa, a Tibetan mystic, is dying. Everyone is weeping and Marpa shouts, "Stop! On such a moment of

celebration, why are you weeping? I am going to meet the Divine -- He is just here and now." And he
laughs and he smiles and he sings the last song, and everyone goes on weeping because no one can see the
Divine there -- everyone is seeing death.

Marpa says, "The Divine is here and now. Why are you weeping? Such a moment of celebration! Such a

moment of festivity! Sing and dance and enjoy! because Marpa is going to meet the Friend. The Divine is
here just now. I have waited long and now the moment has come. Why are you weeping?" Marpa cannot
understand why they are weeping; they cannot understand why Marpa is singing. Has he gone mad? Of
course, for us he has gone mad. Death is there and it seems that he has gone mad. Marpa is seeing
something else. Marpa was really one of the most open flowerings of humankind.

When Marpa comes to his teacher, the teacher says, "Faith is the key."
So Marpa says, "Then give me something to try my faith. If faith is the key, then give me something to

try my faith."

They are sitting on a hill and the teacher says, "Jump!" and Marpa jumps. Even the teacher thinks he

will die. Many, many followers are there, and they think that he is just mad -- that they will not even find a
piece of his bones.

They rush down, and Marpa is sitting there singing and dancing. The teacher asks, "What has

happened?" It seems like a coincidence. The teacher thinks silently in his mind that it is just a coincidence:
"Why? This is impossible! How did this happen? It is a coincidence, so I must try him in some other ways."
Then many ways are tried.

The teacher tells Marpa to go into a burning house. He goes, and he comes out without even being

touched by the flames. He is ordered to jump into the ocean, and he jumps. There are many, many trials and
the teacher cannot say now that this is just a coincidence, so he asks Marpa, "What is your secret?"

"My secret?" says Marpa. "You told me faith is the key, so I took your word for it!"
The teacher says, "Now stop because I am afraid. Anything may happen."
Marpa says, "Now anything can happen because I just took your word. Now if you are yourself

wavering, I cannot take it. I thought faith was the key, but now it will not work. So please don't order me
again. Next time I will die, so don't order me again!"

This is purity -- childlike purity. In Tibet, Marpa is known as Marpa the Faithful -- just childlike faith.
So the story is told that Marpa became the teacher of his own teacher, and his teacher bowed down and

said, "Now give me the key of faith because I don't have any. I was just talking! I have only heard that faith
is the key, so I was just talking. Now you give it to me." So Marpa became the teacher of his own teacher.

Marpa's mind is pure, innocent, non-calculating. There is not a single moment of calculation and

cunningness. He does not even see how deep is the abyss. He does not ask the teacher, "Am I to take what
you say literally, verbally, or is it just a metaphor, or are you just saying something in mystical language?
Am I to jump, really, or do you mean some inner jump?" With no calculation, no cunningness, he jumps.
The teacher says, "Jump," and he jumps; there is no gap between the two. A single moment's gap, and there
is calculation. A single moment's gap, and you have calculated.

This purity opens you; you become an opening. That is the invocation.

The Ultimate Alchemy, Vol 1

Chapter #4

Chapter title: Desire: The Link with Life

18 February 1972 pm in Bombay, India

Archive code: 7202185

ShortTitle: ULTAL104

Audio:

Yes

Video:

No

Length: 91 mins

LAST NIGHT YOU SAID THAT DESIRES MOVE BETWEEN THE DEAD PAST AND THE IMAGINARY
FUTURE. PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW AND WHY THIS DEAD PAST PROVES SO DYNAMIC AND POWERFUL
THAT IT COMPELS A PERSON TO FLOW INTO THE PROCESS OF ENDLESS DESIRE. HOW CAN ONE
BE FREE FROM THIS DYNAMIC PAST, THE UNCONSCIOUS AND THE COLLECTIVE UNCONSCIOUS?

THE past is not dynamic at all: it is totally dead. But still it has a weight -- a dead weight. That dead

weight works; it is not dynamic at all. Why the dead weight works has to be understood.

The past is so forceful because it is the known, the experienced, and mind always feels fearful of the

unknown, the unexperienced. And how can you desire the unknown? You cannot desire the unknown. Only
the known can be desired. So desires are always repetitious. They repeat, they are circular. You always
move in the same pattern, in the same circle. The mind becomes just a groove of repetitions, and the more
you repeat a particular thing, the more weighty it becomes, because the groove goes deep.

So the past is important not because it is dynamic; it forces you to do something and to desire not

because it is forceful, powerful, alive -- but only because it is a dead groove. And the past has been repeated
so many times that to repeat it has become easy and automatic. The more you repeat a particular thing. the
more easy and convenient it becomes. The basic convenience is this: that if you are repeating a thing, you
need not be aware.

Awareness is the most inconvenient thing. If you are repeating a particular thing, then you need not be

aware. You can be just deep asleep, and the thing can be repeated automatically, mechanically. So it is
convenient to repeat the past because you need not be aware. You can go on sleeping, and the mind will
repeat itself.

That's why those who say that desirelessness is the state of bliss also say that desirelessness is

synonymous with awareness. You cannot be desireless unless you are totally aware. Or, if you are aware
you will find that you are desireless, because desires can have a repetitive force upon the mind only when
you are not aware. So the more asleep the mind is, the more repetitive and the more mechanical. So the past
has the grip only because it is a repetition -- and because it is the known. How can you desire the unknown?

For the unknown there can be no desire. The unknown is inconceivable. That's why, even when we

begin to desire God, we are not desiring the unknown. By "God" we must mean something which is known.
So go deep: what do you mean by "God"? -- particularly YOUR God. What do you mean by it? You will
find under the garb of "God" something known, something experienced.

It may be eternal pleasure. So the so-called religious persons go on saying, "Why are you wasting your

life in desires which are momentary? Come to us! Here is the fulfillment; here is the possibility to achieve
permanent, eternal pleasure." The language can be understood. You know the momentary pleasure, so you
can desire permanent pleasure -- but under the garb of God there is pleasure.

You may be seeking God only because you are fearful of death. Then, under the garb of God, you are

really asking for immortality, not to die ever, an eternal life. You know this life -- that is your experience --
now you want to make it eternal. So whenever we talk about God, the Divine, Liberation, mokhsa, don't be
deceived by the words because the words may be hiding something totally different. And they are hiding it
-- because how can you desire the unknown? How can you conceive of it? How can you ask for it?

Really, the phenomenon is quite different. When you are not in desire, the unknown comes to you -- you

cannot desire it. When you are desireless the unknown comes to you. You cannot desire it! The state of
desirelessness is the opening for the unknown to come. You cannot desire it because the very desire will
become the hindrance.

So mind goes on repeating; it is a mechanical thing. So the dynamism is not in the mind -- mind is just a

dead, mechanical thing -- the dynamism is in your consciousness, and if your consciousness is identified
with the mind then the dead mind becomes dynamic. The dynamism belongs to your energy, it is not part of

your mind. You are the dynamism behind it. If you are identified with the mind, if you think that you are the
mind, then the mind begins to be dynamic. If you are not identified with the mind, then the mind is just dead
-- just a dead weight, just a mechanical accumulation.

It is a long accumulation -- millennia of evolution, many, many, many lives are accumulated there. It is

not only that your mind belongs to this life -- it belongs to life as such. It has evolved, so it has deep
grooves. It is not only that you fall in love: your father and mother have fallen in love before you; their
fathers and their mothers and theirs and theirs -- they have all fallen in love. The mind has a deep groove of
falling in love, so when you fall m love don't be deceived that you are falling in love. The whole humanity
is behind you; the whole humanity has made the groove. It is in your bones, it is in your cells, it is in your
very metabolism. Every cell has a sex part in it, and every cell has a groove, and every cell has a mind,
memory -- long memories, beginningless memories. So if you are identified with this mind, it becomes a
force -- a dynamic force. You give the energy, but the dead machine begins to move. You pedal it.

So remember: energy belongs to you; dynamism belongs to you. Mind is a mechanical thing produced

by millennia of evolution, but it has deep grooves. And if you are identified, then you will have to flow
through those grooves. There is no escape then.

So the first thing is how not to identify, how to remember constantly that mind is one thing and you are

something else. It is difficult, it is arduous -- but it is possible. It is not impossible. And once, if you have
even a moment's glimpse of unidentified Existence, then you will never be the same again. Once you come
to know that mind is not the force: "I am the force, the vitality comes from me," if even for a single moment
you have the glimpse of your mastery, then mind will never be master again. And only then can you move
into the unknown.

Mind cannot move into the unknown: it is produced by the known. It is a product of the known, so it

cannot move into the unknown. That's why mind can never know what Truth is, what God is. Mind can
never know what freedom is, mind can never know what life is -- because intrinsically mind is dead. It is
dead: dust accumulated through centuries and centuries -- just dust, memory dust.

It seems that mind forces you. It doesn't force you really, it only gives you the easiest grooves. It

supplies to you only the repeated routine tracks, and you fall victim to convenience -- because to break a
new route and to create a new track and to move in a new groove is very difficult and inconvenient. That is
what is meant by TAPA -- austerity. If you begin to move in some new grooves which are created not by the
mind but created by consciousness, then you are in TAPASCHARYA -- in austerity. It is arduous.

Gurdjieff had many exercises. One exercise was to deny the mechanism sometimes. You are hungry:

just deny and let your body suffer. You be just calm and quiet, and remember that the body is hungry. Don't
suppress it; don't force it not to be hungry. It is hungry; you know. But at the same time say to it, "I am not
going to fulfill this hunger today. Be hungry, suffer! Now, I am not going to move today in this supplied
groove. I will remain aloof."

And, suddenly, if you can do this, you begin to feel a gap. The body is hungry, but somewhere there is a

distance between you and it. If you try to occupy your mind, then you have missed the point. If you go to
the temple and begin to do kirtan and singing just to forget the hunger, then you have missed the point. Let
the body be hungry. Don't occupy your mind to escape from hunger. Remain hungry, but just tell the body,
"Today I am not going to fall in the trap." You remain hungry, you suffer.

There are persons who are doing fasting, but meaninglessly because whenever they fast they try to

occupy the mind so that the hunger should not be known and should not be felt. If the hunger is not felt, the
whole point is missed! Then you are playing tricks. Let the hunger be there in its totality, in its intensity. Let
it be there; don't escape from it. Let the fact of it be there, present, and remain aloof and tell the body,
"Today I am not going to give you anything." There is neither conflict nor suppression nor any escape.

If you can do this, then suddenly you become aware of a gap. Your mind asks for something. For

example, someone has become angry. He is angry with you, and the mind begins to react, to be angry. Just
tell the mind, "I am not going to fall in the trap this time." Be aloof. Let the anger be there in the mind, but
be aloof. Don't cooperate, don't be identified, and you will feel that anger is somewhere else. It surrounds
you, but it is not in you, it doesn't belong to you. It is just like smoke around you. It goes on, goes on, and
waits for you to come and cooperate.

There will be every temptation. This is what is really meant by temptation. Mm? -- no devil is there to

tempt you. Your own mind tempts you, because that's the most convenient way to be and to behave.
Convenience is the temptation; convenience is the devil. The mind will say, "Be angry!" The situation is
there and the mechanism is just on. Always, whenever this situation was there, you have been angry, so the

mind supplies you again with the same reaction.

As far as it goes it is good because mind makes you ready to do something you have always been doing;

but sometimes just stand off, off the track, and tell the mind, "Okay, anger is there outside. Someone is
angry with me. You are supplying, me with an old reaction, a stereotyped reaction, but this time I am not
going to cooperate. I will just stand here and observe and see what happens." Suddenly the whole situation
changes.

If you don't cooperate the mind falls dead, because it is your cooperation which gives it dynamism,

energy. It is your energy, but you only become aware when it is used by the mind. Don't give it any
cooperation, and the mind will just fall down as if without a backbone -- just a dead snake with no life. It
will be there, and for the first time you will become aware of a certain energy in you which doesn't belong
to the mind but belongs to you.

This energy is pure energy, and with this energy one can move into the unknown. Really, this energy

moves into the unknown if it is not associated with the mind. If it is associated with the mind, then it moves
into the known. If it moves into the known, then it takes the shape of desire. If it moves into the unknown,
then it takes the shape of desirelessness. Then there is sheer movement -- a play of energy, a sheer dance of
energy, an overflowing energy moving into the unknown.

Mind can only supply the known. If you can be detached from your mind, the energy will have to move,

it cannot remain static. That is what is meant by energy: it has to move! Movement is its very life.
Movement is not a quality of energy: movement is the very life! It is not that energy cannot be without
movement -- no! It is the very life, intrinsic.

Energy means movement, so it moves. If mind supplies it grooves, then it moves into the grooves. If

there is no supply of grooves and if you have just put off the mind, then too it moves, but now the
movement is into the uncharted. This movement is the play, the leela this movement is creative; this
movement is spiritual. And it is desireless. It is not because there is some desire that you move. It is because
you cannot do anything else but move: you are energy and movement. So see the difference.

When mind works, it works as a dead weight, a mechanical weight, through the past. It pushes you

towards the future. Because the past is pushing towards the future, the past again projects its own desires.
So first understand the repetitiveness of desires.

There are not so many desires. Really, there are very few. You go on repeating them. Just count how

many desires you have. They are not many -- very few! You will not even be able to find enough to count
on your fingers. How many desires do you have? Very few! And, really, if you look deeply, you may even
find that only one desire is there. There are modifications of it, but really only one desire, and the same
desire is being repeated continuously. Life after life it is being repeated. You go on repeating and then it
begins to seem, it begins to appear, that you are helpless, that the wheel is moving and you cannot do
anything. It is not so. You are helpless only because you have forgotten totally that the energy by which the
wheel is moving is given by you.

Because of the past, the future is just a repetition. It is the projected past. You again desire the same

thing, and you go on again and again. That's why I said that past and future are parts of mind, not parts of
time. Time is just here and now, the present. If mind is not working, then energy will be here and now in the
moment. It will move because it is energy, but now the movement will be into the unknown. The known is
not there at all. Mind is not, so the known is not.

Someone asked Hui-Hai, "How did you achieve? How did you reach?"
Hui-Hai said, "When I became a no-mind, then I achieved, then I reached."
We are minds. That means: tethered to the past. If we can become no-minds that means untethered to the

past -- then the moment is free, fresh, and energy moves -- not for something but because it is energy.
Remember the difference exactly: it moves not for something; it moves because it is energy.

A river is moving; ordinarily we think it is moving for the sea. How can it know? It is not moving for

the sea. It is moving because it is energy. Ultimately, the sea happens to be there; that is another thing. So
when you move into the unknown, ultimately you reach to the Divine. It happens to be there. If your
movement is pure, you reach it.

The river goes on moving without knowing, without any map. The past cannot supply the map because

the river is not going to move on the past tracks again, so every step is into the unknown. And where it is
going, there is no way to know. It is not moving because of any desire; it is not moving for something. The
future is unknown -- just unknown, dark. It moves. Why does it move? It moves because it is energy.

A seed is moving, a tree is growing, stars are moving. Why do they move? Have they to reach

somewhere? No! They move because they are energy; pure energy is moving. Because pure energy cannot
do anything else, it moves. So when you become just pure energy. not mind but no-mind energy, you move;
and then every step is just into the unknown. Then life becomes a bliss, it becomes ecstatic, because the old
is never repeated again. Never will the morning be the same again, never again this moment. Now it is a
sensation, a thrill every time. This thrill creates Meera's dance; this thrill creates Chaitanya's singing with
this thrill, every moment something new is bursting, exploding. A Buddha is never bored. He looks fresh.

Maulingputta came to Buddha. He was a very inquiring young man, a great scholar, one who knew all

that can be known from scriptures, a great pundit. When he came to Buddha he began to ask many
questions. The second day again he asked many questions. The third day again he asked many questions.
Ananda, another disciple of Buddha's, was just bored. He asked Buddha, "Are you not bored? He is
repeating the same questions again and again."

Buddha asked Ananda, "Has he repeated? Has he repeated a single question?"
Every moment is so new for a Buddha-conscious mind. For a Buddha-like mind, everything is so new,

how can you repeat the old question again? Even the questioner does not remain the same. How can you ask
the same question you asked yesterday? The Ganges has flowed so much, so how can you ask the same
question again? You will never be the same again yourself.

And Buddha said, "Even if he is asking the same questions, he is not asking the same person. So how

can I say he is repeating? He must have asked someone else. Yesterday where was l? The energy has
moved."

Someone was very angry, insulted Buddha; then felt sorry, and the next day came to ask Buddha's

forgiveness. Buddha was just bewildered, and he said, "You are a strange man! You insult one person and
then you ask pardon from somebody else."

The man said, "What are you saying? Am I strange, or are you? I came yesterday and insulted you. I felt

very sorry and I couldn't sleep."

Buddha said, "That's why you are still repeating. But I could sleep and now I am a different man. The

river has gone on. It is not the same bank again, and I will never be the same so now you are in difficulty,
because you cannot ask pardon of a man you will never meet. If I ever meet him I will tell him whatsoever
you have said to me."

This energy moves into the unknown. It is fresh, young, so a Buddha can never be old. The body, of

course, will become old, but a Buddha can never be old. He will remain young. That's why we have never
pictured Ram, Krishna or Buddha as old. They became old, but we have no pictures of Krishna's old age, of
Ram's old age, of Buddha's old age, of Mahavir's old age. We have no pictures!

It is not that they never became old -- the body has to follow the common lot -- but by not creating

pictures of their old age we have just meant something more. Really, they were never old because they were
so moving -- so moving and so young. For such persons death is not an end. It is again a further movement.
It is not an end at all.

So mind is not dynamic: mind is mechanical. It can become dynamic if you cooperate with it. Don't

cooperate with it! Remember your aloofness, create a distance. Be aware, and then the mind will be there
but you will be outside.

The English word "ecstasy" is very beautiful and meaningful. You may not have even conceived of what

this word means -- "ecstasy". It means to stand outside; the word means to stand outside. If you can stand
outside of yourself, if you can be outside of yourself, you are in ecstasy. Someone has suggested that to
translate "Samadhi" as "ecstasy" is not good because the word "Samadhi" doesn't mean to stand outside.
Really, Samadhi means to stand inside. So someone has suggested a new word, he has coined a new word:
instead of ecstasy he says it is better to translate Samadhi as "instasy" -- to stand inside.

Really, these two words mean two different things, but in a certain way they mean the same. If you can

stand out of your mind, then you will be able to stand in yourself. If you can stand outside yourself -- the
so-called self -- then you will be, for the first time, inside. So ecstasy IS "instasy". Then you will be in your
center.

If you are out of your mind, then you will be centered in yourself. So going out of the mind is going into

consciousness. That's why mind has to be understood as mechanical, as a mechanism, as accumulation, as
the past. And once you feel it, you are out of it. But we go on, we continue to identify ourselves with it.

Whenever you say, "This is my thought," you are identifying. Change the language, and sometimes it

helps very much -- if you can just change the language! Language has such a deep grip. Say, "This belongs
to my past mind," and feel the difference. When you say, "This is my thought," you are identified. Say,

"This belongs to my mind, my past mind," and feel how only a change of language creates a distance.

For example, we say, "My mind is tense." Then you are identified. We even say, "I am tense." Then

there is even more identification. When I say, "I am tense," there is no gap. When I say, "My mind is tense,"
there is a little gap. If I can say, "I am aware that the mind is tense," then there is a greater gap, and the
greater the gap, the less will be the tension.

When we say, "I am tense," it looks as if someone else is responsible. So psychology suggests never to

say "I am tense," because subtly it makes someone else responsible. They say that rather than to say "I am
tense," one should say, " I am tensing." Then the responsibility is yours.

So break the old habits of language, mind, thoughts, and then your energy will move. And once the

mind is not there, you are free for the first time.

OSHO, THERE IS A STORY IN THE LIFE OF PARAMAHANSA RAMAKRISHNA, AND WE HAVE HEARD IT
FROM YOU MORE THAN ONCE, ABOUT HIS LUST FOR THE PALATE WHICH SHARADA DEVI TOLD
ABOUT. DOESN'T IT INDICATE THAT DESIRE IS INTRINSICALLY RELATED TO LIVING, TO LIFE
ITSELF?

Desire is related to life, but life can be desireless also. But then bodily life will become impossible.

Really, desire is the link between life and body. If all the desires drop, then the body cannot continue any
more because body is just an instrumentality for desires to be fulfilled. Now biologists say that we have
developed the senses because of desires, and if you can desire persistently then your body will develop new
senses.

It is only because of desires that we have eyes. Ordinarily, we think that because there are eyes we see.

No! Biologists say that because there is a desire to see, eyes develop. If the desire is not there to see, then
eyes will just drop. The whole body comes into existence because of desires.

Buddha lived forty years after his Enlightenment, so there was a question: If desires have stopped

totally, then Buddha must die -- how is he alive?

The body has a momentum. If you are running and want to stop suddenly, you cannot stop. Your mind

has stopped. you have decided to stop, but you will have to run a little more because of the momentum. You
have been pedalling a bicycle, and now you have stopped pedalling, but the wheels have accumulated
momentum. They will run on, and it will take a little more time for the bicycle to stop completely. That's
why I always say that if the bicycle is going uphill, then it will stop soon. If you have stopped pedalling and
the bicycle is going uphill, then it will stop soon. It may even stop the same moment you stop pedalling. But
if it is going downhill, it may go on much longer.

So if Enlightenment happens before the age of thirty-five. the body may die soon. If it happens after

thirty-five then it is downhill, it may continue more. So a Shankara dies soon. He was just thirty-three, and
he became Enlightened at the age of twenty -- so it was rare! And he had to die. He couldn't complete the
thirty-fifth year, he couldn't reach even to the middle. If the Enlightenment happens after thirty-five, then
you are downhill, then the body can continue.

With desires stopping totally, really you have stopped being a body. Now the old momentum will work,

and it will depend on many things.

Buddha died because of food poisoning, and he could not be cured; not because the food poisoning was

so dangerous -- it was very ordinary -- but he had no bodily link, so he couldn't be helped. So now medicine
accepts this: that if you have a lust for life, medicines wiLl he more helpful. If you don't have any lust for
life, then medicines may not prove helpful at all.

So now there are many experiments. Two persons are ill, just on their deathbeds. One is more serious,

and there is no hope for him -- but he is hopeful and he wants to live longer. Medical science is not hopeful,
doctors are not hopeful, but he himself is hopeful. Another is not in such a serious state. Everyone is just
hopeful: "He will survive; there is no problem." But he himself is hopeless. He doesn't want to survive.
Suddenly, inside, something has dropped from the body. Now medicine cannot help. He will die -- and the
seriously ill man will survive. Medicine can help him.

Body and consciousness are related by desires. That's why, if a person dies without desire, then he will

not be reborn; because now there is no necessity, no causality to create a body again.

I have seen one person who cannot go to sleep because he is fearful of death. Death may occur in sleep,

then what can he do? So he is afraid; he cannot sleep. And I think his fear is valid, his fear has a

significance -- because he has no desire to live. He is not desireless! He just has no desire to live. Rather, he
has a desire to die, and if a person has a desire to die, he can die in sleep very easily.

You can get up in the morning again, not only because the morning has come, but because you have

something which forces you to get up. This person has nothing; nothing forces him to get up. So he cannot
sleep because of the fear, and in the morning he doesn't feel at all like getting up. There is nothing! Still, I
say. he is not desireless. He is just frustrated; all his desires have become frustrations. When all desires are
frustrated, you create a new desire -- a desire to die.

Freud, in his old age, stumbled upon a new thing of which he had never dreamed. For his whole life he

worked on "libido" -- the desire to live. He based his whole structure of thinking on this force of libido --
this sex, this desire for life -- and in the end he stumbled upon a second desire. The first desire he calls
"Eros" and the second he calls "Thanatos". Thanatos means deathwish, a desire to die. Freud began to feel
that if there is no desire to die, how can a man die? There must be hidden somewhere a desire to die;
otherwise, biologists say that the body itself can continue -- even forever. There is no necessary reason why
a man should die so soon, because the body has a built-in process to renew itself. It can continue renewing
-- but there are many things....

The body is born, as we have said always, because of some desire to live. Mm? Really, Freud is right. A

second desire is needed to complete the circle. A desire must be hidden there to die. That death-desire helps
you to die, and the life-desire helps you to be reborn. That death-desire comes many times to everyone.
Many times you become suddenly aware of it. Whenever something is frustrated, such as in the case of
someone having lost a lover or beloved, suddenly the death-desire comes up and you want to die -- not
because you have become desireless, but because your most longed-for desire is now impossible. So you
begin to desire death.

This difference has to be noted, because many religious persons are really not religious -- they are only

desiring death, they are suicidal. It is very easy to change the desire from life to death. It is very easy,
because life and death are not just two things -- they are two aspects of one phenomenon, so you can
change.

So it happens that the persons who commit suicide are really those who are very, very deeply attached to

life. Because they are so much attached to life, whenever they are frustrated they cannot do anything else
but commit suicide. A person who is not too much attached to life cannot commit suicide. And suicides can
be committed in two ways: they can be long-term and they can be short-term. You can take poison just now,
or you can go on dying slowly for many years. It depends how much courage you have.

Sometimes it happens that you have no courage to live and you have no courage to die, then you have to

die slowly. Then a long-term suicide is chosen. Then one just goes on dropping by and by -- dying, dying,
dying. Then death is a long, delayed process -- by degrees.

This deathwish is also there, and there are many things, many implications in it. Bernard Shaw, in his

later life, left city life and went to live in a small village. And someone asked him, "Why have you chosen
this village?"

He said. "I was just passing by the cemetery and I came upon a stone on which it was written:'This man

died at the age of one hundred and ten -- the death was untimely.' So I thought this village is worth living in.
If people here think that one hundred and ten is untimely, then it is good to be here." And, really, he lived
very long.

Psychologists say it is a fixation. If the whole country thinks that seventy is the maximum, then it

becomes a fixed mind-attitude. If the country thinks that one hundred is the maximum, then one hundred
will become the maximum. If the country begins to think as a whole, collectively, that there is no need to
die so soon and that a man can live three hundred years, if the whole country becomes fixed with three
hundred years as the maximum, then the body can live for three hundred years. It is just a collective
hypnosis.

We know a person is going to be old at a particular age, everyone knows. The child becomes aware of

when one becomes old. The young man knows when youth will be gone. Everyone knows! And it is so
repeatedly known, it is so suggestive, that everyone knows that seventy, or eighty at the maximum, is going
to be the limit. We die at eighty because we believe that eighty is the limit. If you can change the limit, there
is no need to die so soon. Basically, there is no need for the body to die so soon. It is a self-regenerating
process. It goes on regenerating, it can continue.

This collective hypnosis and the deathwish become conjoined, they both become one. But if life needs

desires, then death also needs desires. That is why we never say that Krishna died -- never! We say that he

entered Samadhi. We never say Buddha died -- mm? -- it was Nirvana, deliverance. We never say that they
died because, really, for them, how can death be possible when life has become impossible? Understand the
implication: if for Buddha life has become an impossibility, then how can death be possible? A person who
cannot desire life, how can he desire death? If he has become so desireless that life is impossible, then death
will also be impossible. So we never say that a Buddha dies. We say only that he enters a greater life. We
never say that he dies.

How is it that we die? We die because we live, because we are attached to life. We have to be detached

from life, broken. When a Buddha lives, he lives as a momentum. He is in the car, and the car is going
downhill. Wherever it stops he will not have any grudge -- wherever. At the very moment the car stops, he
will get down. Not for a single moment will he feel something wrong. He will not feel anything is wrong: it
is as it should be. He can live as if not living; he can die as if not dying. But if you want to continue, then
some desire has to be there.

Ramakrishna tried to be alive for some time just to give the message to a right person. He felt that if

there was no desire left and no momentum either, then the body would just drop. So he cultivated, he
created, he forced a desire to be there. He continuously tried that at least one desire must be alive until the
moment he could deliver the message to a right person. It never happened to a Buddha; it never happened to
a Mahavir. Why did it happen to Ramakrishna?

Really, it is not a question of why it happened to Ramakrishna. It is a question concerned not with

Ramakrishna, but with our age. At Buddha's time it was never impossible to find persons -- never! There
were so many, and at any moment the message could be delivered to anyone. But for Ramakrishna it was
such an impossibility to find a person. So for the first time, Ramakrishna alone is the man, in the whole
history of mankind, who tried forcibly to be alive a little more -- just to get the right man.

And when Vivekananda came to him for the first time, Ramakrishna said, "Where have you been? I

have waited so long! I have waited so long!" And when Vivekananda, for the first time, achieved the first
glimpse of Samadhi, Ramakrishna stopped him; he said, "Now no more, because then you will also have the
same difficulty. So just remain here, don't go further. Just remain here until the message is delivered. Now I
will take your keys with me so you will not have to suffer the same as I have suffered. First I achieved
something, then I had to be rooted in the earth and it was very difficult -- very difficult. So now I will take
your keys with me, and these keys will be given to you only before your death -- three days before."

And Vivekananda remained without having the glimpse again. Then he couldn't achieve. This

happening, what Ramakrishna had said, became the barrier. He couldn't cross the barrier. He crossed only
before his death -- three days before.

Life is desire -- mm? -- the life we know is desire. But there is another life which is desirelessness -- the

life we don't know. This life is through body; that life is through pure consciousness -- direct, immediate.
This life is through body, through mind, through instruments. That's why it is so dim and faint. It is not an
immediate thing.

When something reaches you through many mediums, it is distorted. It is bound to be. You have never

seen the light: your eyes see the light. Then the light is transformed into chemicals, into electric waves. You
have never seen those electric waves, you have never seen those chemicals. Those chemicals carry the
message, then they are decoded in your mind. They are just codes. Then they are decoded, and the mind
gives you the message that you have seen the light. And then you begin to say, "I have seen the light; the
sun has risen." You have never seen the sun rising. It is just a chemical process that reaches you -- never the
sunrise. It is only the picture that is again decoded.

Our whole experience is like this -- indirect. I touch the hand of my beloved, of my lover, of my friend. I

have never touched them. I cannot -- because touch remains at my fingertips. And then, just through my
system, an electric wave comes to my mind. That wave is decoded and I say, "How beautiful!" This touch
can be created if my eyes are closed; this touch can be created by a mechanical device. And if the same
wave frequency can be created as is created by my beloved's touch, I will say, "How beautiful!"

No touch is even needed if the message-carrying system in the mind can be stimulated by an electrode.

Again I will feel, "How beautiful!" Just an electrode can be put in your skull, and if we know what the
frequencies of your experiences are -- when you feel love, what frequency waves you receive -- then we can
push the buttons and the same frequency is created by the electrode in the mind and you begin to be in love.
What frequency do you receive when you interpret it as anger? The electrode can create the same frequency
and you will begin to be angry.

What are you living in life? What have you known? You have known nothing -- because everything is

through so many mediums that only an indirect message reaches you.

There is another life without the body, without the mind. Then the experience is immediate, without any

medium. It is direct, there is nothing in between. If the light is there, there is nothing in between, then for
the first time you are filled with light, not with a coded message. That experience is the experience of the
Divine.

I can say it in this way: if you are experiencing Existence through mediums, it is the world. If you are

experiencing the Existence without any mediums, it is God. That which is experienced is the same: only the
experiencer experiencing in different ways.

One way is through something else. I give you a message, then you give it to somebody else, then he to

somebody else. Then it reaches to whomever it was to be given -- to whom it may concern. Then it reaches
-- and it has changed. Every time it is given to someone, it is changed. With our eyes we don't see alike. We
cannot see alike because in a subtle way every instrument is different. So when I see light I feel it in a
different way. When you see light you feel it in a different way.

When a Van Gogh sees the sun, certainly he sees it in a different way, because he will become just mad,

begin to dance, cry, scream. He will just be mad when he sees the sun. For one year Van Gogh continuously
painted only sun pictures. He would not sleep: he was just mad. And in Arles, where the sun is very hot, for
one year continuously the sun was beating down on his head, and he was in the field painting -- painting for
one year continuously. He went mad. For one year he had to be put in a madhouse, and the only reason was
that he couldn't stand so much sun.

But no one goes so mad! He committed suicide and he wrote a letter. And in the letter he had written,

"Because I have painted all the faces of the sun, now there is no need to live. I have painted all the faces
possible. I have known the sun in every mood -- now there is no need to live. Now I can drop dead."
Certainly he must have seen the sun in a different way. No one goes so mad after the sun. Why this
madness?

He must have had a different message system. And now psychologists say he must have had some

difFerent chemicals, built-in chemicals. It is possible that soon we will come to a conclusion that poets have
a different quantity of certain chemicals, and only because of that do they begin to be mad after flowers,
after clouds. For all others it is just nonsense. It is okay that there is a flower, but it is nonsense to go on
painting it, creating poetries and living for it. Certainly something like LSD must be a built-in chemical with
them. A dancer has a different chemistry. It seems that the bioenergy works in a different way.

So when I say that life is bound with desires, I mean this life, not that. This life is bound with desires. So

the more desires you have, the more you will have the feeling of this life. Mm? That's why those who are
after desires, running and running, seem to us to be very much alive; we say they are very much alive. What
are you doing? Run! Everyone is running and everyone is so alive! Are you just dead?

But there is another life also -- greater, deeper, more vital, more immediate and direct. We have a word

for it, aparokshanubhuti -- immediate experiencing. God must be seen, but not by eyes. He must be heard,
but not by ears. He must be embraced, but not by hands, not by the body. But how can it happen?

We know only two things -- life of desires and death of desires. We don't know another dimension --

desireless life and desireless Liberation. But if we become aware of the very mechanism of desire, we can
create a gap; and the moment the gap is created, life begins to move into another life.

WITH GROWING DESIRELESSNESS, SOMETIMES THE PERSON BECOMES OUTWARDLY INACTIVE.
IS IT LETHARGY AND DULLNESS? WHY DOES IT HAPPEN?

Many things are possible, and it will depend. Certainly many desires will drop and many actions also.

Those actions which were just caused by desires will drop. If I was running for a particular desire, how can I
run if the desire has dropped? My running will stop. At least the same running on the same route will stop.
So when a person becomes desireless, at least for an interim period, for an interval -- and how long it will be
will depend on the individual -- he will become inactive. The desires will have dropped -- and all the actions
that he had been doing were concerned with desires, so how can he continue? They will drop.

But by dropping desires and actions, energy will be accumulated -- and now energy will begin to move.

When it moves, how it moves will vary from individual to individual, but now it will move. There will be a
gap, an interim period, an interval. This I call a pregnancy period. The seed is born, but now it will gestate

for at least nine months. And it may seem strange, but it happens. This nine months period is meaningful.
Near about this, eight months or ten months, will be the interim period, and you will just become inactive.
This inactivity will also vary. Someone may become so inactive that people may think that he has just gone
into a coma. Everything stops.

For Meher Baba it happened like that. For one year he was just in a coma. He couldn't even move his

limbs. Action was far off, he couldn't stand up because even the desire to stand had gone. He couldn't eat; he
had to be forced. He couldn't do anything! For one year continuously he became just helpless -- a helpless
child. This was a pregnancy period, and then, suddenly, a different man was born. The man who became
inactive was no more: a new energy -- energy accumulated.

Lives and lives of dissipated energy create this gap -- because you do not have enough energy. When

desire is not there to invoke. provoke, stimulate, you just drop. Your energy is not really energy, but just a
pushing and pulling. Anyhow you go on running because the goal seems just nearby. A few moments'
endeavour more and you will reach! You pull yourself on; somehow you carry yourself and run. But when
the goal is dropped, when there is no desire, you will drop. An inactivity will be there. If you can be patient
in this inactivity period, after it you will be reborn. Then energy will begin to move without desires.

But I say it depends. It may happen suddenly as it happened for Meher Baba: that was a sudden case. It

happened in Bombay. It happened by a kiss from an old lady, Babajan. Meher Baba was just passing,
coming back from his school. Babajan was an old Sufi mystic, an old lady who was just sitting under a tree
for years and years and years. Meher Baba was just coming, and Babajan called him. He knew this old lady.
She was sitting for years under the tree, and he had passed by that street daily on his way towards his school
and towards his home. She called and he came near. She kissed him -- and he dropped as if dead just there.
Then he had to be carried home.

For one year continuously the kiss remained on him and he was in a coma. It may happen suddenly like

this. Mm? This was a great transfer, and Babajan died afterwards because she had just been waiting for this
moment to give someone the whole energy. This was her last life, and there was not enough time even to
explain what she was giving. And also, she was not the type to have explained. She was a silent mystic. She
had not touched anybody for years. She was a only waiting for this moment when she was to kiss someone
and the whole energy was to be transferred in a single transfer. Before this she had not even touched
anyone, so this touch was to be total.

And this child was simply unaware of what was going to happen. He was ready -- otherwise this transfer

would not have been possible -- but he was not aware. He had worked through his past lives. He was just
coming up. He might have become aware later on, but just now he was completely unaware. This happened
so suddenly that he had to go again through a second pregnancy. For one year he was as if not. Many
medicines were given; many, many doctors and physicians tried to help, but nothing could be done. And the
woman who could do something, she disappeared, she died. After one year he was a different man -- totally
different.

If it happens so suddenly, then it will be a deep coma. If it happens through some exercises, then it will

never be so deep a coma. If you are doing awareness exercises, meditation, then it will never happen so
suddenly. It will come so gradually, so gradually, that you will never even become aware of when it has
happened. By and by, inactivity will be there, activity will be there, and very gradually inside everything
will have changed. And the desire will drop, the activity will drop, but no one will ever feel that you have
been lethargic or that you have become inactive.

This is the gradual process. So those who follow yoga or any method will not feel the suddenness. There

are also methods in which sudden happenings become possible, but one can be prepared. Babajan never
prepared this boy; she never even asked his permission. It was a one-way affair. She just transferred the
energy.

Zen monks also transfer, but before transferring they prepare the ground. A person can be made ready to

receive the energy, then this reaction will not be there. He may feel lethargy for some days, for some
months, but no one will feel outside that inside everything has become inactive. But that needs preparation,
and that can happen only in schools. And when I say "school", I mean a group working.

Babajan was alone; she never made anyone her disciple. There was no school, there was not a following

in which she could have prepared anyone. And, also, she was not the type. She was not the teacher type; she
couldn't teach. But she had to give to someone, to whomsoever passed and she felt: "Now is the moment,
and this one will be able to carry it," so she could just deliver it.

So it depends. Inactivity is bound tb be there -- more or less, but it will be there, a period will be there.

And only then can you be reborn, because the whole mechanism has to change completely. The mind drops,
old roots drop, the old habits drop, the old association of consciousness and desires, consciousness and
mind, drops -- everything old drops and everything has to be new.

A waiting is needed, patience is needed. And if one is patient, one has not to do anything: just to wait is

enough. The energy begins to move by itself. You just sow the seed and then wait! Don't be in a hurry; don't
go every day to pull the seed out and see what is happening. Just put it inside and wait. The energy will take
its own course. The seed will die, and the energy will sprout and will begin to move. But don't be impatient.
One has to wait.

And the greater the seed, and the greater the possibility, the potentiality of the tree that is going to be,

the more will be the waiting. But it comes. It comes! The deeper the waiting, the sooner it comes.

The Ultimate Alchemy, Vol 1

Chapter #5

Chapter title: A still Mind: The Door to the Divine

19 February 1972 pm in Bombay, India

Archive code: 7202195

ShortTitle: ULTAL105

Audio:

Yes

Video:

No

Length: 87 mins

NISCHAL GYANAM ASANAM
NON-WAVERING KNOWING IS ASANA -- THE POSTURE

MAN IS neither a body, nor a mind alone -- he is both. Even to say that he is both is wrong in a way

because body and mind are separate only as two words. Existence is one. Body is nothing but the outermost
core of your consciousness, the grossest expression of consciousness. And consciousness, on the other hand,
is nothing more than the subtlest body, the most refined part of the body. You exist in between.

These are not two things, but two ends of one thing. So whenever knowing becomes non-wavering,

body is also affected; non-wavering knowing creates a non-wavering body. But the vice versa is not true.
You can impose non-wavering on the body, but the knowing will not become non-wavering. It can help -- a
very little. It can be helpful, but not much.

Body posture became very important because we are bodyoriented. Even those who say that we are not

bodies think in terms of body. Even those who say, "We are not bodies," their thinking, their mind, remains
tethered to the body. Even they begin with body postures. Asana means giving your body a posture in which
the body becomes non-wavering, still. It is supposed that if the body is still, then the mind will go into
stillness.

This is not true -- the contrary is true! If the mind becomes still, then the body becomes still. And then a

very mysterious phenomenon happens: if the mind is still, you can go on dancing but your body will remain
still. And if your mind is not still, you can be just dead but still the body will be wavering, because the mind
wavering creates subtle vibrations which come to the body and the body goes on wavering inside. Try it.
You can sit just like a statue -- dead, stonelike. Close your eyes and feel. Outwardly, no one can say that
your body is wavering, but inwardly you will know that it is. A subtle trembling is there. Even if it cannot
be detected from the outside, you can feel it from the inside.

If your mind is totally still, then even if you are dancing you win feel from inside that the body is still. A

Buddha is still even when he is walking, and a non-Buddha is not still even when he is dead. The vibrations
come from your center, they originate from you, and then they spread towards the body. The body is not the
originator, it is not the source, so you cannot stop them from the periphery. You can impose, you can
practice, but inside there will be turmoil -- and this imposing will create more conflict than stillness.

So this sutra says that to practise meditation, posture -- a still posture -- is needed. But what do we mean

by a posture? This sutra says that "a non-wavering knowing" is the posture. If the mind is non-wavering,
then you are in the right posture. In that right posture everything can happen.

So don't deceive yourself by creating bodily imitations. You can create them; that is very easy. On the

circumference, on the periphery, to impose stillness is very easy. But that is not your stillness. You remain
in turmoil, you remain wavering. From the center the waves must not come.

What is this non-wavering knowledge? It is one of the deepest secrets. To understand it we will have to

go deep into the very construction of mind, so let us begin.

Mind has many types of thoughts. Every thought is a wavering, every thought is a wave. If there are no

thoughts, then the mind will be non-wavering. A single thought, and you have trembled. A single thought,
and you are not still. And a single thought is not a single thought: it is a very complex phenomenon. A
single thought is created by many waves; a single word even is created by many waves. So only when many
waves are there in the mind is a single word created, and a single thought has many words. Thousands and
thousands of ripples create one thought.

Thought is the outermost, but waves have preceded. You become aware only when waves become

thoughts because your awareness is so gross. You cannot be aware when waves are pure waves still in the
formation of becoming a thought. The more you will become aware, the more you will feel that thought has
many layers. Thought form is the last. Before thought there are seed waves which create the thought, and
before the seed waves there are still deeper roots which create seeds.

Seeds create thought. At least three layers are very easily visible for a conscious mind. But we are not

conscious: we are asleep. So we become aware only when waves take the grossest form -- thought. As far as
we know, thought seems to be the most subtle thing. It is not. Thought really has become a thing. When
there are pure waves you cannot even detect what is going to happen, what thought is going to be created in
you. So we become aware only when waves become thought.

A single thought implies thousands of waves, so we can conceive how much we are wavering --

continuous thinking, not a single moment of no thought, one thought followed by another constantly, no
gap. So we are really a wavering, a trembling phenomenon. Soren Kierkegaard has said that man is a
trembling -- just a trembling and nothing else. And he is right in a way. As far as we are concerned, man is a
trembling. A Buddha may not be, but then Buddha is not a man.

This thought process is the process of wavering. So non-wavering means a no-thought state of mind.

Really, the sutra says "non-wavering knowing" -- mind is not even mentioned. So first, three layers of mind
have to be distinctly understood.

One is the conscious mind, and one type of thought belongs to the conscious level. These thoughts are

the least important. They constitute moment-to-moment reactions, reflexes. You are on the road and a snake
passes and you jump. The snake gives you a stimulus and you respond. So one type of thought is like this:
stimulus outside and a response from the periphery. Really, you don't think: you just act. A snake is there:
you act; you become aware and you act. You don't go inside to ask what to do. The house is on fire and you
run. This is a peripheral reaction.

So one type of thought is the moment-to-moment reflex type. Even a Buddha has to react in this way.

This is natural; nothing is wrong with it. If you react moment-to-moment, then nothing is wrong with the
mind -- but that is not the only layer.

Then there is a second layer. This second layer is the subconscious. Religions call it "conscience".

Really, this second layer is created by the society; it is a society in you. Society penetrates everyone,
because society cannot control you unless it penetrates you; so it becomes a part of you. The upbringing, the
education, the parents, the teachers -- what are they doing? They are doing one thing: they are creating the
subconscious mind. They are giving you thoughts. structures, ideals, values. These thoughts belong to the
second layer They are helpful, they have their utility, but they are harmful also. They are instruments to
move easily, conveniently in the society, but they are barriers also.

This second layer has to be understood more. This second layer consists of ideas within, fixed ideas,

fixations. So whenever your peripheral mind is working moment-to-moment, it is not pure. Only a child is
pure, innocent -- he is working moment-to-moment. There is no subconscious to interfere.

You are not working moment-to-moment. The subconscious is constantly interfering. It is giving you

choice: what to choose, what not to choose. Every moment it is making you narrow. You become just
unaware of many things because of the subconscious. It will not allow you to be aware of everything. And
about many things you become too much aware because this subconscious mind forces you constantly to be
aware of them.

Every society creates a different type of subconscious, so, really, one's being a Hindu or a Christian or a

Jain belongs to the subconscious mind. As far as the peripheral mind is concerned, everyone reacts in the
same way; it is natural. But the subconscious mind is not natural; it is a social product. So we behave in
different ways. You see a church. A Hindu can pass without even becoming aware that there is a church. He
need not be aware. But a Christian cannot pass without becoming aware that there is a church. He may even
be anti-Christian -- consciously he may even be like Bertrand Russell who can write a book called WHY I
AM NOT A CHRISTIAN -- but he will become aware. The subconscious is working there.

A Brahmin, he can intellectually understand that the problem of untouchability is just violent, cruel, and

intellectually he can think that it is not good, but this is the conscious mind. The subconscious is working
there. If you ask him to marry a Sudra girl, somewhere deeply he is struck. He cannot conceive of it. Even
to eat with an untouchable becomes difficult. Intellectually he understands nothing is wrong in it, but the
subconscious goes on projecting and pushing. And he cannot react naturally: the subconscious distorts,
perverts.

This subconscious is supplying you constantly with many ideas which you think are your own. They are

not. They have been fed to you just like a computer is fed. You can get information out of a computer only
if you have previously fed it. The same is the case with man also, with mind also. Whatsoever you are
getting out is just because of what has been fed in before. Everything has been fed in. This is what we mean
by education, the so-called education: feeding information. So it is ready in the unconscious every moment.
It is so ready, really, that even when you don't need it, it comes up. It constantly overfloods your mind, and
it becomes a constant wavering, a constant trembling. This subconscious mind is the root cause of so many
social evils.

Really, the world could be one if there were no subconscious mind. Then there would be no distinction

between a Hindu and a Mohammedan. The distinction is of the subconscious feeding, and it goes so deep
that you cannot even feel how it works. You cannot go behind it. It goes so deep that you always remain in
front and you feel helpless. But the society is also helpless. It is a substitute -- a poor substitute, but a
substitute. Unless man becomes totally aware, the society cannot dispense with the subconscious.

For example, if a man becomes totally aware, he cannot be a thief. But man, as he is, is not aware at all,

so society has to create a substitute for awareness: it must put a strong suggestion inside that theft is bad,
evil, sin, that you must not be a thief. This idea must be put deep in the subconscious so that when you
begin to think of theft the subconscious comes up and says, "No. this is sin," and you are stopped. This is a
social substitute for awareness -- and unless man comes to awareness the society cannot dispense with the
subconscious, because it has to give you some rules. Unless you are so aware that rules are not needed at all,
the subconscious will have to be maintained.

So each society has to create a subconscious. And I call that society good -- remember it -- I call that

society good which creates a subconscious that can be dispensed with very easily; and I call a society bad
which creates such a subconscious that cannot be dispensed with: because if it cannot be dispensed with,
then it becomes a hindrance when you try to be aware. And, really, no such good society exists now which
gives you a dispensable substitute, a dispensable subconscious, which gives you a subconscious as a
utilitarian instrument so that the moment you become aware, you can throw it.

To me, that society is good and religious which gives you an inherent freedom about the subconscious.

But no society gives it. so. no society is religious, really. Every society is totalitarian, and every society
takes your mind in such a way that you become just an automaton -- and you go on thinking and deceiving
yourself that your thoughts are yours. They are not! Even the very language we use is contaminated, the
words we use are contaminated. We cannot use a single word without the subconscious being there. It
comes suddenly. Society uses it very cunningly, and then your reactions, your reflexes, are not spontaneous.

You are passing along the road, and you see in the distance a woman coming out of a shop. Your mind

begins to feel and say that she is beautiful, and then suddenly you recognize that the woman is your sister.
Now, suddenly, she is not a woman at all. What has happened? The word "sister" has come in. Now she is
not a woman at all! And with the word "sister" the subconscious has many, many deep associations.
Suddenly something has happened. What has happened? The woman is not a woman now. because a sister

is not a woman. How can a sister be a woman? Nothing has changed outwardly, but a word has dropped in.

Then you recognize that you were deceived by the dress: she is not your sister. Again something else

comes up: she is not your sister! Now she again becomes beautiful. How can a sister be beautiful? And
when you say "beautiful", you mean now you are sexually interested. Now she can potentially be a sexual
object. The possibility grows.

Even the words we use are loaded with the subconscious. That is why in the hospitals, for nurses we use

the word "sister" -- just so that they cannot be made objects for sexual interest. Otherwise it will be difficult
for them and more difficult for the patients. Constantly, nurses are moving here and there. If they constantly
become sexual objects, then it will be very difficult for the patients also. So we just play a trick: we call
them sisters. The moment they are sisters they are not women. The very word is loaded.

This subconscious mind is constantly working, day and night. The mind's working is double. One

working belongs to your conscious mind. It is concerned with how to control the subconscious consciously,
constantly. Then the subconscious is controlling the conscious mind. It is working to control your reactions,
your actions, your reflexes, everything. Whatsoever you are doing must be controlled! This is the society's
grip on you. You are just moving in society's hands. No value is yours. How can it be? How can a value be
yours when you are not at all aware? Only awareness can give you authentic, individual values.

All these values are supplied. If the society is vegetarian, then you have vegetarian values. If the society

is non-vegetarian, then you have non-vegetarian values. If the society believes in this, then you are a
believer in it. If the society doesn't believe, then you are a disbeliever. But you are not; only society is there.

This is a double control: one control is on your conscious mind, your behaviour. Another control is more

deep and more dangerous, and that is the control on your instinctive nature. The first part is conscious, the
second is subconscious. The subconscious is created by society. And the third is the instinctive. which is
given by biological nature: that which you really are biologically, that which you are born with. That's a
third part, the deepest: the biological instinctive nature.

This second, subconscious mind is controlling outward behaviour and also controlling inward instincts.

Nothing should be allowed to come up to the conscious mind from your instinctive nature if the society is
against it. Nothing should be allowed to come up -- even up to your consciousness. So this subconscious
creates a great barrier for the instinctive nature.

For example, sex is an instinct, the deepest, because without it life cannot exist on earth. So life depends

on sex. It is not easily dispensable; obviously, it must not be -- otherwise life will become just impossible.
So it has a deep grip. But the society is anti-sex; it is bound to be. The more a society is organized, the more
it will be anti-sex -- because if your sex instinct can be controlled then everything can be controlled, and if
your sex instinct cannot be controlled then nothing can be controlled. So it becomes a fighting ground.

You must be aware that whenever a society becomes sexually free, that society cannot exist. It is

defeated. When Greek culture became sexually free, Greek civilization had to die. When Roman civilization
became sexually free, it had to die. Now America cannot exist any more. America has begun to be sexually
free. The moment a society becomes sexually free, the individual is not in its grip. You cannot force him.

Really, unless you suppress sex you cannot force your youth to war. It is impossible. You can force your

youth into war only if you suppress sex. So the hippie slogan is really meaningful: "Make love, not war!" So
society has to suppress the deepest instinct. Once it is suppressed, you can never rebel. Many things have to
be understood about it.

Children, when they mature sexually, begin to be rebellious -- never before. The moment a boy is

mature he will begin to be rebellious against his parents, never before -- because with sex comes
individuality. With sex he really becomes a man, never before. Now he can be independent. Now he has the
initial energy with him, because he can propagate, he can reproduce. Now he is complete.

At fourteen, a boy is complete, a girl is complete. They can be independent of their fathers and mothers,

so rebellion begins to take shape. If the society has to control them, sex must be suppressed. All instincts
have to be suppressed because we have not been able yet to create a society in which freedom is not against
all, in which one individual's freedom is not against all. We have not yet been able!

We are still primitive, not yet civilized, because a society can be called civilized and cultured only when

each individual grows to his total potentiality, is not suppressed. But politics will not allow it, religions will
not allow it, because once you give total freedom to instinctive nature, then churches and temples and the
so-called religious business cannot continue. Religion will be there, more authentic, but religions cannot
continue: because if you cannot create fear, then no one will come to this religious business.

People come because of fear; and if you suppress their instincts they become fearful -- fearful of

themselves. A child feels existential fear for the first time when his sex is suppressed. He feels guilty. He
begins to feel that something is wrong, and he begins to feel also that "No one has this evil that I am having
inside. I am guilty." You create guilt; then you can control. Then he feels inferior inside, afraid. This fear is
then exploited by religious heads, by political leadership, because they all want to dominate.

You can dominate only when people are fearful. And how can you create fear? If you can convince them

that something which is constantly within them is sin, they will be fearful. They will be fearful! All the time
sex will be there, and they will become afraid -- afraid of themselves and guilty. They cannot enjoy
anything then. Then the whole life becomes a frustration. Then they go on seeking somewhere help,
guidance, someone to take away their responsibility, someone to lead them to heaven, someone to protect
them from hell.

This third, instinctive layer is the unconscious. The subconscious is controlling it every moment --

EVERY MOMENT! And it controls so fanatically that everything is destroyed -- or at least distorted. We
never feel from the third layer what real instinct is. We never feel! Everything is distorted. From this
subconscious mind -- the most suppressed, the most distorted, the most destroyed -- come all the miseries.
All the miseries, all the paranoia, all the schizophrenia, all mental diseases, they come from this third layer.

These three -- conscious, subconscious and unconscious -- these are the three types of thoughts. The

deeper the layer from where the thought comes, the more irrelevant it looks. So if you just write down your
thoughts as they happen, you will feel that you are just mad. What is going on in your mind? What type of
thinking is going on? Most of it looks irrelevant. It is not! It is relevant, only with missing links -- because
the subconscious will not allow everything to come up. Something escapes and comes to the mind, and the
gaps are there.

That's why you cannot understand your dreams: because even in dreams the subconscious is always alert

not to allow everything, and the unconscious has to try symbolic routes. It has to change everything just to
escape the censor of the subconscious. So it goes on giving you messages in symbolic, pictorial forms.

Your mind is flooded: first, with outward reactions and reflections which are natural; second, by

subconscious thoughts which have been produced by the society; and third, by instinctive nature which has
been suppressed totally. These three constantly flood the mind. And because of these you are constantly
wavering -- constantly wavering and trembling. You cannot even sleep. Dreams will continue; that means
mind will continue wavering. Twenty-four hours a day, the mind is just a mad thing going round and round
and round.

In this state of affairs, how can you be still? How can you attain the posture, the non-wavering mind?

How can you achieve it? And when the rishi says that non-wavering knowing is the posture -- the right
posture -- he means that unless these layers are broken and the contents released, you will never be in a state
of pure knowing. The mind will not be cleansed; you will not attain the purity of perception. So what to do?
What to do to achieve this non-wavering knowing?

Three things: one, whenever you are living moment-to-moment, don't allow your subconscious to

interfere constantly. Sometimes, just drop the subconscious and live in the moment. It is not needed.
sometimes it is needed. When you are driving, the subconscious is needed, because the skill of driving
becomes a part of the subconscious. That's why you can talk and you can smoke and you can think and you
can drive. The driving is now not a conscious effort. It has been taken over by the subconscious. So it is
good to use it whenever it is needed, but when it is not needed, just drop it -- put it aside! Without any
murmur, just put it aside and be in the moment.

There are many moments when the subconscious is not needed, but only because of old habit you go On

using it. You have come back from the office and you are sitting in your garden: why should the
subconscious come in now? You can listen to the birds just as once you listened when you were a child
without a subconscious. Relax in these moments, and just be there near the reality. Don't allow your
subconscious mind to come in. Just put it aside! Play with children, put the subconscious aside.

A father who cannot play with his children as their equal cannot really be a right father, because no

communication is possible unless you are equal to them. A mother cannot really be a mother unless she can
become a child again with her child. Then there is a rapport. Then both become equal. Then there is a
friendship. Then a different quality of love comes in. So, really, a child never feels independent, free, at
liberty with his parents -- never! He begins to feel freedom for the first time when he goes to his chums --
not with his parents.

So remember constantly that whenever you can relax your subconscious, relax it! It is not needed to be

there every moment.

There are many moments, but you will not relax it even in your bed. You have gone to sleep and it is

working. You want to sleep and it will not allow you. It says, "I am to do much work." It goes on thinking,
it goes on working. You can put off the light -- mm? -- that means you stop the first, the peripheral mind.
Now there will be no light; you will not be able to see. You can close the doors. Now there will be no noise,
no sound. You have completely closed yourself off from outside stimuli. That means now you need not
react, so the first layer of the mind is relaxed.

But what to do with the second layer? You put off the light, close the doors, close your ears, close your

eyes, but it goes on working -- because you have never allowed it not to work. And, really. a man is not the
master of his mind unless he achieves this: that when he wants to work with the mind he works; when he
doesn't want to work the mind he doesn't. And the second capacity is the greater.

I am reminded: Leih Tzu was asked by a Chinese emperor, "I have heard many, many miracles about a

particular saint. I have heard that he can walk on water and fly in the sky, that gravitation has no effect on
him and he can produce things from out of the blue. So I want to ask, Leih Tzu, can your Master Lao Tzu
also do such miracles?"

Leih Tzu said, "Yes, he can do them. He is capable of doing any miracle."
Then the emperor said, "But I have never heard that he has ever done any. Why is he not doing them?"
Leih Tzu said, "He is also capable of a greater miracle. That is, he is capable of not doing also. He is

capable of doing a miracle, and he is even capable of not doing it."

And the second is greater, because to do a miracle is, of course, a power. But when you have the power,

then not to use it is a greater power. And it is really impossible. The second miracle is really impossible!
And because of that second miracle, Buddha never did any miracle, Mahavir never did any miracle --
because of that second capacity. That is greater!

You think that a miracle is a miracle, but if you can be in a nonthinking state it is a greater one. It needs

only the breaking of an old habit. But you have never tried it. You have used your subconscious constantly;
your subconscious mind doesn't have any memory of when you have allowed it not to work. So the first
thing to do is to allow your subconscious mind sometimes to be put aside. Don't use it, and soon you will
have a less wavering mind. You can become capable of this, and it is not difficult. You must only become
conscious of your subconscious workings. Don't allow -- just relax sometimes and tell your subconscious
mind: "Stop!"

One thing more to remember: never fight with it; otherwise you will never be capable of this

non-wavering. Never fight with it, because when a master begins to fight with his servant he accepts
equality. When a master begins to fight with a servant, he has accepted him as the master. So please
remember: never fight with the subconscious mind; otherwise you will be defeated. Just order it -- never
fight.

And know the difference -- what I mean when I say just order it. Just say to it, "Stop!" and begin to

work. Never fight with it! This is a mantra, and the mind begins to follow it. Just say, "Stop!" Nothing more,
nothing less. Say, "Stop totally!" and begin to behave as if the mind had stopped. And soon you will become
capable, and you will be just wonder-struck at how this mind stops by just saying "Stop!" It is because mind
has no will.

You might have seen someone in a hypnotic trance. What happens? In a hypnotic trance, the hypnotist

goes on simply giving orders and The mind follows -- the man follows. Absurd orders! and the man begins
to follow, the hypnotized subject follows them. Why? Because the conscious mind has only been put to
sleep, and the subconscious mind has no will of its own. Just tell it to do something and it will do it.

But we are not aware of our own capacity, so rather than ordering we go on begging, or, at the most, we

begin to fight. When you fight, you are divided. Your own will begins to fight with you. The subconscious
mind has no will at all. So, if you want to stop smoking, don't try. Just order and stop. Don't try at all. If you
fall in the trap of trying you will never win, because you have accepted something which is not there. You
just say to the mind, "Now I stop this very moment," and soon you will become aware that things begin to
happen. It is natural! Nothing is strange about it: it is just natural. Once you have to be aware of it, that's all.
So just put the subconscious mind aside and begin to live in the moment.

And then the second thing you have to do is: when you have become capable of putting the mind aside

when something outside is working as a stimulus, then try the other way -- when some instinct is coming up,
just put the subconscious mind aside. It will be a bit difficult, but when the first thing is achieved it will not
be difficult at all. Just see now that again the sex is coming up, the anger is coming up, and just say to the
subconscious mind, "Let me face it directly. Don't come in -- let me face it directly! You are not needed."

Just order the mind and face the instinct directly. And once you begin to encounter your own instincts
directly, you will be the master without the need of any control.

When you need control, you are really not the master. A master never needs control. If you say, "I can

control my anger," you are not the master -- because a controlled thing can erupt any moment, and you will
remain constantly in fear of that which you have controlled. There will be a constant fight. In any weak
moment you will be defeated. So, please, don't control. Be a master! -- don t control. These are two
completely different dimensions.

When I say be a master, this mastery comes only when you encounter your nature, your biological

nature as it is, in its purity. I wonder, have you ever seen your sex in its purity without moral teachings
coming in, without the gurus and mahatmas dropping in, without the scriptures? Have you seen your sex
instinct in its purity, in its pure fire? If you have seen it, you will become the master of it. If you have not
seen it, you will remain a cripple and you will remain a defeated one. And howsoever you try to control,
you will never be able to control it. That is impossible!

Control is impossible: mastery is possible. But mastery has a different root. Mastery means knowledge;

control means fear. When you fear something, you begin to control. When you know something, you
become the master: there is no need to control. And knowledge means direct encounter. Instincts should be
known in their purity. Drop the subconscious, because it is a constantly disturbing factor. It goes on
distorting things; it will never allow you to see things as they are. It will always put the society in between,
and you will see things through the society as they are not.

And, really, this is the miracle of the subconscious mind -- that if you look through it things begin to be

as you see them. The subconscious mind can impose any colour, any shape on things. Just put it aside; face
your biological nature directly. It is beautiful! It is wonderful! Just face it directly. It is Divine! Don't allow
any moralistic nonsense to distort it. See it as it is.

Science observes things, and the basis of its observation is that the observer must not come in: he must

remain just an observer. And whatsoever the thing reveals should be allowed. The observer must not come
in to disturb and destroy or distort or give a shape or a colour. A scientist is working in his lab: even if
something comes up which destroys his whole concept, his whole philosophy, his whole religion, he must
not allow his mind to come in. He must allow the truth to be revealed as it is.

The same goes for inner working, inner research: allow your biological nature to reveal itself in its pure

being. And once you know it you will be the master -- because knowledge means mastery, knowledge
means power. Only ignorance is weak. And through control there is no knowledge, because the whole
concept of control is brought in by the subconscious, by the society.

So if you can do two things with your subconscious: one, allowing the fact of the outside Existence to

come to you directly; and then, two, allowing the "facticity" of the inside Existence to be realized in its
purity, in its innocence -- then a miracle happens. It is a miracle, and that miracle is this: that subconscious
and unconscious drop. Then mind is not divided in three. Then mind becomes one. That oneness of mind,
undivided oneness, is what the Upanishads call "the knowing" -- because even the knower is not there.
When these three divisions have dropped, when even this division of knower is not there, then only pure
knowing, only mirrorlike knowing remains.

With this knowing, you have two centers: one, the outside periphery where you unite with the universe;

and another, the inside where again you unite with the universe. And this knowing joins both the inner and
the outer -- the atma and the brahma.

This pure knowing is without any trembling. This pure knowing is the posture, the right posture, in

which the Enlightenment happens, the Realization happens, in which you become one with Truth. This is
the door -- but how to cleanse? It is not simply a theory, it is not a theoretical statement at all. It is just a
scientific procedure, it is a process. Do something to dissolve the divisions of the mind. And if you want to
dissolve the mind, concentrate on the subconscious, the middle portion of the mind, which is society. Drop
it!

It is, of course, necessary for a child to be brought up in a society. It is necessary! So the subconscious is

a necessary evil: the society has to teach him many things -- but they should not become fetters. That's why
I say that a better society, a real, moral society, will also teach, side by side, how to break this subconscious.
A better society will give its children the subconscious with a conscious methodology of how to drop it
when it is not needed and how to be free of it.

It is needed up to the point when you become aware, when you achieve an awakened state of mind.

Until then it is needed. It is just like a blind man's staff. A staff cannot substitute for eyes: it is just a groping

in the dark. But a blind man needs it, and it is helpful -- but a blind man can become so much attached to his
staff that when his eyes are healed and he has begun to see, he still cannot throw away his staff, and goes on
groping. Because groping is easier when the eyes are closed, he remains with closed eyes and goes on
groping with his staff.

This subconscious is like a blind man's staff. A child is born, but he is not born aware. The society has to

give him something so that he can move and grope -- some values, some ideals, some thoughts. But they
should not become the eyes. And what I am saying is: if you drop the divisions and create more awareness
within yourself, you will have eyes, and with those eyes this staff is not needed.

But it is a related thing. If you drop the subconscious you will become aware; if you become aware then

the subconscious will drop. So begin from anywhere. You can begin by being more aware, then the
subconscious will drop. Mm? This is a samkhya process, this is a samkhya methodology: just be aware and,
by and by, the subconscious will drop. The yoga process is a second way -- the other, the contrary: drop the
subconscious, and you will become more aware. Both are related.

So wherever you want to begin, the important thing is to begin. Begin from anywhere, either from being

more conscious or from being less obsessed with the subconscious. And when these divisions drop, you will
have a pure knowing. That pure knowing is the posture. With that pure knowing, with that non-wavering
knowing, your body will achieve a stillness you have not known at all.

We are not aware: that's why we don't know how disturbed we are in our bodies. You cannot sit still,

and if you try to sit still then for the first time you will become aware of subtle movements in the body: the
leg will begin to say something, the hand will begin to say something, the neck will begin to say something,
every part of the body will begin to give you information. Why? It is not that when you sit still the body
begins to move; it is moving every moment. It is only because you are otherwise occupied that you are not
aware. There are subtle movements continuously: your body is constantly moving and moving. This
constant wavering really doesn't belong to your body. It belongs to your mind. The body only reflects. You
cannot even sleep in a non-moving posture. The whole night you are moving this way and that, moving and
moving and moving.

Now we have pictures from some American "sleep labs". Now they have taken pictures, movies --

movies of sleeping persons. If you could see your own movie -- how much you move in the night -- you will
see that the whole night you are disturbed. And by your body movements it can be seen that much is going
on inside -- much! There are so many facial gestures, so many gestures of the hands, fingers, the whole
body. This shows that much is happening inside. A madman must be inside; otherwise these gestures are
impossible. But you are never aware of what is happening to you. No one is aware! Everyone is asleep; no
one is aware. So you don't know what you are doing in your sleep with your body. But that doing is because
of the mind. A disturbed mind is reflected by the body.

A Buddha sits just like a statue. It is not that he has forced his body to be still. The mind is still, and the

body need not reflect because there is nothing to reflect.

Once Buddha stayed outside a big capital with his ten thousand monks. The king became interested.

Someone said, "You must come to see this man." The name of the king was Ajata Shatru. The name means
"someone whose enemy is not born at all". Mm? Ajata Shatru means one who has no enemies in the world
-- no enemy is born, no enemy can be born. But this Ajata Shatru was very fearful of enemies. He became
interested because so many people came and said, "You must come! This is something strange, this man is
something strange. Come and see!" So he came.

He has reached the grove, the garden. The evening has fallen. He asks his courtiers, "You said that he is

staying with ten thousand monks, but no noise is heard -- are you deceiving me?" He pulls out his sword.
He thinks that some deception is there, that they have brought him to this forest and now someone is going
to kill him. "You say ten thousand monks are staying just beyond these trees? -- and there is not a bit of
noise!" The forest is absolutely silent, and Ajata Shatru says, "I have seen this forest many times -- it has
never been so silent before. Even when no one was staying here it has never been so silent -- even the birds
are silent! What do you mean? Do you want to deceive me?"

They say, "Don't be afraid. He is staying here; that's why the forest is so silent and even the birds are so

silent. You come!"

But he puts his sword in his hand. He is afraid and trembling. When he reaches the forest, Buddha is

sitting under a tree and ten thousand monks are also sitting under trees -- everyone just like a stone statue.
He asks Buddha, "What has happened to all these people? Are they dead? I have become afraid. They look
like ghosts -- no one moving, not even eyes moving. What has happened to them?"

Buddha says, "Much has happened to them -- they are not mad now."
Unless one can be so silent, one can never feel what Existence means, what life means, what the bliss of

it is, the benediction. Only in such silence does life descend. You become aware of the music, of the nectar.
You begin to feel it, but only in silence. And that silence comes only when you are non-wavering. If you are
wavering, if the mind is just wavering and there is trembling inside, you cannot feel that silence.

You cannot attain silence directly: you have to attain non-wavering, then silence comes as a shadow. If

non-wavering comes, then silence comes. So Buddha says, "Much has happened to these fellows. They are
not mad now. They have become silent and now they are one with these trees, with this earth, with this sky"
-- because you can be divided only by noise. Silence never divides: silence joins you.

For example, if we are sitting here and everyone becomes so silent that not a thought has any existence,

not a single ripple is there in the mind, everyone silent, totally silent, will you be different from anyone
else? Will you be different from your neighbour? How can you be different? The feeling of difference is a
thought. Do I mean you will feel one with them? No, because the feeling of oneness is a thought. You will
simply be one, not a feeling. Really, there will be no one here -- just silence.

So Buddha says, "They are now one with the trees, with the earth, with the sky. Really, they are not

here. Only silence prevails, and that's why even birds have caught the infection." Ten thousand people so
silent that even the birds in the trees have become aware! They have felt -- the silence has become
infectious. "So you are right, Ajata Shatru," Buddha says, "that you might have passed through this grove
many times, and it has been never so silent. It will never again be so silent because, for the first time, in ten
thousand minds silence is present here." So silence has become ten thousandfold, and everything is affected.
Even trees are afraid to move. Even birds are afraid to tremble, to make noise. It is evening, they are coming
back, and when birds come back they create much noise -- but not a single ripple.

When you begin to be silent you begin to be in deep communion with Existence. Thoughts and thoughts

are noises. Waves and waves are thoughts and tremblings inside. They create a barrier, they disrupt -- they
make you alone. Then you begin to be alone in this whole universe, and that loneliness creates
meaninglessness. The more lonely you are, the more you will feel meaningless, futile, useless, and then you
will begin to fill yourself with more noise. With radio, television, with anything, you will try to fill yourself,
to be occupied. You run from here to there, from this club to that club. Go on running! Don't leave any gap
in which you might become aware of your loneliness! So this whole life just becomes a running from one
point to another. This is madness, and the whole earth has become a madhouse.

So attain to this posture -- and don't begin with the body. Begin with the subconscious mind, and then

your body will reflect what is happening within. Even now it is reflecting what is happening within. The
body is a mirror; it is transparent. Those who have eyes, they know that the body is transparent. You enter
here, and I know what is happening inside you -- because you cannot enter without showing it. You look at
me, and I know what is happening inside your eyes -- because how can you raise your eyes without
expressing that which is within? It is being shown every moment!

Every moment is an indication. It is related; nothing is irrelevant. Your body is showing every moment,

but you don't know the body language. The body has a language of its own, and it shows -- everything! You
cannot deceive. You can deceive with your language. but not with your body -- not with your body! You
can smile, but your lips will say that there is no smile within. You can show something by your face, you
can try, but still the face will give hints that this is false.

This body is just giving information every moment. You cannot change it. You can try, but you cannot

change it. And even if you succeed in changing your body, you can succeed only in deceiving others not
yourself, because the inside cannot change by the outside change. It is not basic. You can cut a tree by the
roots, but not by the leaves. If you cut the leaves, new leaves will come up again and one leaf will be
replaced by two. Cut two, and four leaves will come out of that spot. The tree will take revenge, the roots
will take revenge. They will say, "You are cutting one leaf -- we will put two. We are capable of constantly
supplying -- infinitely."

So don't be bothered by leaves. And body has only leaves: roots are deep within. Cut the roots, and the

leaves will wither away by themselves. When there are no roots to feed, the leaves will drop by themselves.
Your body will change. Change the mind and the body will change. Mind is the root!

Attain a non-wavering knowing, and the door will be open and you will be able to have a glimpse into

the unknown. The unknown is not far off: only you are closed. The unknown is here, but you are running.
The unknown is here, but you are in such a hurry and in such speed that you cannot look at it.

Stand still! I don't mean your body: let your mind stand still, your consciousness, and suddenly you will

become aware of something which has always been there. You have been seeking for it, seeking and
searching, lives and lives running for it -- and it was here. It is so near, and that's why you have missed it. It
is just by the corner, and you have sought it everywhere except this place where you are standing.

Non-wavering reveals to you the here and now. That standing still in consciousness reveals to you the

presence which is here.

The Ultimate Alchemy, Vol 1

Chapter #6

Chapter title: Encountering the Unconscious

20 February 1972 pm in Bombay, India

Archive code: 7202205

ShortTitle: ULTAL106

Audio:

Yes

Video:

No

Length: 119 mins

CONSIDERING THE EXAMPLE OF SENSUAL INSTINCT, KINDLY EXPLAIN WHAT ARE THE PRACTICAL
WAYS TO ENCOUNTER THE UNCONSCIOUS MIND, AND HOW CAN ONE KNOW THAT ONE HAS
BECOME FREE FROM IT?

THE UNCONSCIOUS is not really unconscious. Rather, it is only less conscious. So the difference

between conscious and unconscious is not of polar opposites, but of degrees. Unconscious and conscious
are related, joined; they are not two. But our ways of thinking are based on a particular false system of logic
which divides everything into polar opposites.

Reality is never divided like that; only logic is divided. Our logic says either yes or no; our logic says

either light or darkness -- and there is nothing in between as far as logic goes. But life is neither white nor
black. It is, rather, a great expanse of grey. One extreme becomes white, another extreme becomes black,
and life is a great expanse of grey, degrees of grey. But for logic white and black are realities and there is
nothing in between -- but life is always in between these two. So, really, every problem should be
understood not as a logical problem, but as a life problem -- only then can you do something with it. If you
are too fixed with this false logic, then you will never be able to solve any problem.

Aristotle has proved to be one of the greatest menaces, blocks to the human mind, because he created a

system -- which became dominant all over the world -- that divides everything into two opposites. Really,
this is a strange fact. We have nothing for the inbetween reality -- not even words.

De Bono, a modern non-Aristotelian logician, has created a new word -- "po". He says that we have only

two words, "yes" or "no", and there is no neutral word. "Yes" is one opposite, "no" is another -- there is no
neutral word. So he has coined a new word -- "po". "Po" means "I am neither for nor against." If you say
something and I say "po" it means, "I have heard you I am neither for nor against. I am not making any
judgment." Or, to say "po" means: "Perhaps you are right, perhaps you are wrong. Both are possible." Or,
the use of the word "po" means: "This is also one point of view. I need not be on the 'yes' side or the 'no'. It
is not a compulsion."

De Bono has derived this word from words like hyPOthesis or POtentiality. This "po" is a neutral word,

not loaded with any judgment, condemnation or appreciation. Just use the word "po" and you will feel the
difference. You are not taking any standpoint in the polar opposites.

So when I say "conscious" and "unconscious", I don't mean the Freudian opposition. For Freud,

conscious is conscious and unconscious is unconscious. The difference is that of white and black, yes and
no, life and death. When I say "unconscious" I mean "less conscious". When I say "conscious" I mean "less
unconscious". They overlap each other.

So what to do to encounter the unconscious? As far as Freud is concerned the encounter is impossible.

Because it is unconscious, how can you encounter it? The question means the same as if someone says,
"How to see in darkness?" Mm? The question is irrelevant, meaningless. If you put it in this way, "How to
see in darkness?" and if I say, "With light," then the question has not been answered at all because you ask,
"How to see in darkness?" and if there is light then there is no darkness -- you are seeing light.

So, really, in darkness no one can see. When we say "darkness" we mean that now seeing is not

possible. What do you mean when you say "darkness"? You mean that now seeing is not possible. What do
you mean when you say "light"? You mean that now things can be seen. Really, you have never seen light:
you have only seen light reflected in things which you can see. You have never seen light itself -- no one
can see it. We see only things, not light, and because things are seen, we assume, infer, that light is there.

You have not seen darkness; no one has seen it. Really, darkness is just an inference. Because nothing is

seen, you say there is darkness. So when someone asks, "How to see in darkness?" the words look
meaningful, but they are not. Language is very deceptive, and unless one becomes careful in using language
one will never be able to solve any problem. Ninety-nine percent of problems are just linguistic problems,
but if you don't know how to penetrate the garb of language you will never be able to tackle the real
problem.

If you ask Freud how to encounter the unconscious, he will say, "It is nonsense; you cannot encounter it.

If you encounter it, it will become conscious, because encountering is a conscious phenomenon." But if you
ask me how to encounter the unconscious, I will say, "Yes, there are ways to encounter it" -- because for
me, the first thing to be noted is that "unconscious" means simply "less conscious". So if you grow more
conscious, you can encounter it -- so it depends.

Secondly, unconscious and conscious are not fixed boundaries. They change every moment -- just like

the retina of the eye. It is changing constantly. If there is more light, it is narrowed down. If there is less
light, then it widens. It is constantly making an equilibrium with the light outside. So your eye is not really a
fixed thing; it is constantly changing. Just like that is your consciousness. Really, to understand the
phenomenon of consciousness by the analogy of the eye is very relevant, because consciousness is the inner
eye, the eye of the soul. So just like your eye, your consciousness is constantly expanding or shrinking. It
depends.

For example, if you are angry, you become more unconscious. The unconscious is now more spread, and

only a very minor part of you remains conscious. Sometimes even that part is not there either -- you become
completely unconscious. But in a sudden accident: you are on the road and suddenly you feel that an
accident is going to be there and you are on the verge of death -- you suddenly become conscious and there
is no unconscious at all. The whole mind is conscious. And this change is continuously taking place.

So when I say conscious and unconscious, I don't mean any fixed boundaries. There are none, there are

no fixed boundaries. It is a fluctuating phenomenon. It depends on you to be less conscious or more
conscious. You can create consciousness; you can train and discipline yourself for more consciousness or
for less consciousness. If you train yourself for less consciousness you will never be able to encounter the
unconscious. Really, you will even become incapable of encountering the conscious.

When someone has taken some intoxicant, he is training his mind to be totally unconscious. When you

go into sleep, or if you can be hypnotized, or if you can autohypnotize yourself, then you lose
consciousness. There are many tricks, and many of those tricks which help you to be more unconscious are
even known as religious practices. If you do any monotonous, repetitive thing -- for example, if you go on
continuously saying "Ram-Ram-Ram-ram", in a very monotonous tone, you will become less conscious.
And this constant repetition of "Ram-Ram-Ram", in a monotonous tone, will be just auto-hypnotic. You
will go to sleep: it is good for sleep.

If you can create monotony then you will be less conscious, because a bored mind cannot remain

conscious. The boredom is too much, and the mind would like to go to sleep.

We know, every mother knows, how to put a child to sleep. A lullaby does nothing but create boredom.

Every mother knows how to put a child to sleep. With a lullaby -- a constant repetition of certain words --
the child is bored, so he goes into sleep. This lullaby can be created by movement, by anything which is
monotonous -- by anything! Just move the child monotonously, rotate the child monotonously, and he will

go to sleep because he feels bored. Even if you put the child's head near your heart he will go to sleep,
because your heartbeat is a very boring thing. So put the child near your heart, and he will feel bored
because of the constant repetition of the heartbeat. The child knows it very well because for nine months
continuously he has heard it. Even old persons can use the "tick-tick" of a clock for going into sleep, and the
reason is only the resemblance to the heartbeat. So if you feel that sleep is not coming, just concentrate on
your clock and feel the beat, and soon you will drop into sleep.

You can create unconsciousness by creating boredom. By taking any intoxicant, by taking any drug, any

sedative, any tranquillizer, you can create unconsciousness. Consciousness also can be created, but then
quite different methods have to be used.

Sufi mystics use whirling dances. With such vigorous whirling you cannot sleep. It is impossible. How

can you fall asleep when dancing? Someone seeing your dance may go to sleep; for him it may become a
boring thing -- but you cannot go. So Sufis use dance to create more activity inside, more vitality, so that
consciousness spreads. And these dances are not really dances. They look like dances. The Sufi who is
doing the dance is constantly remembering every movement of the body. No movement should be done
unconsciously. Even if a hand is raised, then this hand must be raised with full consciousness that you are
raising the hand -- now the hand is raised; now you are dropping it again. No movement should be allowed
unconsciously. You are whirling around, dancing vigorously; no movement is to be made unconsciously.
Every movement must be done consciously, with full alertness.

Then suddenly the unconscious drops, and with three months of dancing continuously, for hours, you

encounter the unconscious. You penetrate deep, deep, deep, and suddenly you become aware of everything
that is inside. That is what I mean by encountering the unconscious. Nothing remains which is not in clear
vision. Your totality, all your instincts, all your suppressions, your whole biological structure, everything --
not only of this life, but of all lives -- suddenly is revealed. You are thrown into a new world which was
hidden or, rather, to which you were not alert. It was there, but you were asleep -- or your consciousness
was so narrowed down that it escaped.

Your consciousness is just like a torch -- narrowed. You enter darkness with a torch; you have a light,

but it is a narrow, focused light. You can see something, but all else remains in darkness. When I say that
nothing unconscious remains, I mean unfocused consciousness -- unfocused. A focused consciousness will
always choose something to see and choose many things not to see; it is a choice. So I use the similarity:
just like a torch, narrowed down. One point will become very clear, but everything else will be in darkness.
This is what we ordinarily do through concentration.

The more you concentrate, the less you will be able to encounter the unconscious. You will be able to

know something very definitely at the cost of not knowing many things. That's why experts, by and by,
become just ignorant -- ignorant of the whole world: because they have narrowed down their minds to a
particular thing in order to know more about it. So it has been said that an expert is a person who knows
more and more about less and less. In the end, only a point remains focused which he knows at the cost of
ignoring everything else.

This is how concentration works. So through concentration you can never encounter the unconscious.

You can encounter the unconscious only with meditation -- and this is the difference between concentration
and meditation. Meditation means your mind working not as a torch but like a flame: everything is
enlightened around it -- everything. It is not narrowed down, the light is diffused. It is not moving in one
direction -- it is moving in all directions simultaneously so the whole is enlightened.

How to do it? I said Sufis use dance as an active meditation and then they can encounter the

unconscious. Zen monks in Japan use absurd problems to encounter it. You face some problem which
cannot be solved -- which cannot be solved at all! Howsoever you try, the problem is such that it cannot be
solved. They call such problems "koans" -- absurd problems.

For example, they will say to some seeker, "Find out what your original face is." And by original face

they mean the face you had before you were born, or the face you will have after you die -- the original
face. They will say, "Find out how your original face looks." How can you find it out? One has to meditate
on it. The problem is such that you cannot solve it by intellect, by reason. You have to ponder over it,
meditate over it, go on meditating and searching: "What is my original face?" And the teacher will be there
with his staff, and he will look around to see if someone is going into sleep. Then the teacher's staff will be
on your head. You cannot sleep; sleep is not allowed at all. You have to be constantly awake.

So a Zen teacher is a hard taskmaster. You have to meditate before him, and he will not allow you to

drop into sleep -- because the moment when you are dropping into sleep is the moment to encounter the

unconscious. If you can remain out of sleep, then the unconscious will be revealed -- because that is the line.
The very line from where you drop into sleep is the line where you can enter into the unconscious.

You can try this. You have been sleeping every day, but you have not encountered sleep yet. You have

not seen it -- what it is, how it comes, how you drop into it. You have not known anything about it. You
have been dropping into it daily, coming out of it, but you have not felt the moment when sleep comes on
the mind -- what happens. So try this, and with three months' effort, suddenly, one day, you will enter sleep
knowingly: drop on your bed, close your eyes, and then remember, remember that sleep is coming and "I am
to remain awake when the sleep comes." It is very arduous, but it happens. One day it will not happen, one
week it will not happen. Persist every day, constantly remembering that sleep is coming and, "I am not to
allow it without knowing. I must be aware when sleep enters. I must go on feeling how sleep takes over,
what it is."

And one day, suddenly, sleep is there and you are still awake. That very moment you become aware of

your unconscious also. And once you become aware of your unconscious you will never be asleep again in
the old way. Sleep will be there, but you will be awake simultaneously. A center in you will go on knowing.
All around will be sleep, and a center will go on knowing. When this center knows dreams become
impossible. And when dreams become impossible, daydreams also become impossible. Then you are asleep
in a different sense, and then you will be awake in the morning in a different sense. That different quality
comes by the encounter.

But this may look difficult, so I suggest to you a more simple exercise to encounter the unconscious.

Close the doors of your room and put a big mirror just in front of you. The room must be dark. And then put
a small flame by the side of the mirror in such a way that it is not directly reflected in it. Just your face is
reflected in the mirror, not the flame. Then constantly stare into your own eyes in the mirror. Do not blink.
This is a forty-minute experiment, and within two or three days you will be able to keep your eyes
unblinking.

Even if tears come, let them come, but persist in not blinking and go on staring constantly into your

eyes. Do not change the stare. Go on staring into the eyes, your own, and within two or three days you will
become aware of a very strange phenomenon. Your face will begin to take new shapes. You may even be
scared. The face in the mirror will begin to change. Sometimes a very different face will be there which you
have never known as yours.

But, really, all these faces belong to you. Now the subconscious mind is beginning to explode. These

faces, these masks, are yours. Sometimes even a face that belongs to a past life may come in. After one
week of constant staring for forty minutes, your face will become a flux, just a film-like flux. Many faces
will be coming and going constantly. After three weeks, you will not be able to remember which is your
face. You will not be able to remember your own face, because you have seen so many faces coming and
going.

If you continue, then any day, after three weeks, the most strange thing happens: suddenly there is no

face in the mirror. The mirror is vacant, you are staring into emptiness. There is no face at all. This is the
moment: close your eyes, and encounter the unconscious. When there is no face in the mirror, just close the
eyes -- this is the most significant moment -- close the eyes, look inside, and you will face the unconscious.
You will be naked -- completely naked, as you are. All deceptions will fall.

This is the reality, but the society has created many, many layers in order that you will not be aware of

it. Once you know yourself in your nakedness, your total nakedness, you begin to be a different person.
Then you cannot deceive yourself. Then you know what you are. And unless you know what you are you
can never become transformed, because any transformation becomes possible only in this naked reality: this
naked reality is potential for any transformation. No deception can be transformed. Your original face is
now here and you can transform it. And, really, just a will to transform it will effect the transformation.

But you cannot become transformed! You cannot transform your false faces. You can change them, but

you cannot transform them: by "change" I mean you can replace them with another false face. A thief can
become a monk, a criminal can become a saint. It is very easy to change, to replace the masks, the faces.
These are not transformations at all. Transformation means becoming that which you really are. So the
moment you face the unconscious, encounter the unconscious, you are face to face with your reality, with
your authentic being.

The false societal being is not there, your name is not there, your form is not there, your face is not

there. The naked forces of nature are there, and with these naked forces any transformation is possible -- and
by just willing it! Nothing is to be done. You just will, and things begin to happen. If you face yourself in

this nakedness, just will whatsoever you like and it will be.

In the Bible it is said: "God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light." In the Koran it is said: "God

said, 'Let there be the world,' and there was the world." Really, these are parables -- parables of the
willpower which is hidden in you. When you encounter your naked reality, the basic, elemental forces, you
become a creator, a god. Just say, utter a word, and it happens. Say, "Let there be light," and there will be
light. Before the encounter, if you are trying to transform darkness into light it is not possible. So this
encounter is basic, foundational, for any religious happening.

Many, many methods have been invented. There are sudden methods, there are gradual methods. I have

told you about a gradual method. There are sudden methods, but with a sudden method it is always very
difficult -- because with a sudden method it can happen that you may simply die. With a sudden method it
can happen that you may suddenly go mad -- because the phenomenon is so sudden that you cannot
conceive of it. You just drop, shattered.

This happened in the Gita. Arjuna is forcing Krishna to reveal his cosmic form. Krishna goes on talking

about other things, but Arjuna is persistent and he says, "I must see. I cannot believe unless I see. If you are
really a god, then reveal to me your cosmic from!" Krishna reveals it, but it is so sudden, and Arjuna is not
prepared at all. He begins to cry and says to Krishna, "Close it! Close it! I am scared to death!"

So if you come to it through some sudden method, it is dangerous. Sudden methods are there, but they

can be practised only in a group -- in a group where others can help you. Really, ashrams were created for
these sudden methods because they cannot be practised alone. A group is needed, adepts are needed, and a
constant vigilance is needed, because sometimes you may drop unconscious for months continuously. Then
if there is no one who knows what to do, you may be taken for dead. You may be buried or burnt. Many
times Ramakrishna happened to go into deep Samadhi. For six days or for two weeks continuously he had to
be forcefully spoon-fed because he was just as if unconscious. A group is needed for sudden methods, and a
teacher becomes an absolute necessity.

Sudden methods dropped from Indian practices because of Buddha, Mahavir and Shankaracharya

because they insisted that monks should travel continuously. They didn't allow monks to be in ashrams.
They were not to remain anywhere for more than three days. There was a need for this because at the time
of Mahavir and Buddha, ashrams became just exploitation centers; they became just big businesses. So
Mahavir and Buddha both insisted that a sannyasin shouldn't remain anywhere more than three days. And
three days is a very psychological limit, because in order to be attuned with some place or with some people
you need more than three days.

In a new house, you cannot feel at ease unless three days have passed. This is a psychological attuning

time. If you remain in a house for more than three days, then the house begins to look as if it is yours. So a
sannyasin must not remain anywhere more than three days. Buddha and Mahavir insisted. But because of
their insistence, ashrams were destroyed and school methods dropped out of practice -- because a wandering
monk cannot practise sudden methods. He may be in a village, but no one may know anything about it, and
if he practises a sudden method and the happening happens, then he will be in danger: he will have to die.

So Mahavir, Buddha and, later on, Shankaracharya, all these three, insisted that monks go on wandering

continuously. They must not remain in one place; they should be homeless wanderers. So it was good in one
way, and it proved bad in another. It proved good because establishments were destroyed, but it proved bad
also because with establishments certain very, very significant practices, methods, just went into oblivion.

Sudden methods require the constant vigilance of a group. A teacher becomes a necessity. So Buddha

could say, "You can know even without me," but a Patanjali cannot say that. Krishnamurti can say, "No
teacher is needed," but a Gurdjieff cannot say that. And the real reason for these differences is their
methods: Gurdjieff has school methods and Krishnamurti belongs to the tradition of wanderers, no school
methods, so no teacher is needed.

With gradual methods you can proceed alone because there is no danger. You have to proceed inch by

inch, and as far as a one-inch happening is concerned, you can control it yourself. But if you have to take a
jump with no steps in between, then you will need someone who knows where you are going to fall, who
knows what can happen. A teacher is not really needed to show you the methods; he is needed really,
afterwards when the method has done something and you have moved into the unknown.

So there are sudden methods, but I will not talk about them. I have given you one gradual method, and

there are many. I will not talk about the sudden methods because it is dangerous to talk about them. If
someone is interested, then he can be led -- but talking is impossible. That's why school teaching has always
insisted that nothing should be written -- because once you write something it becomes public and anyone

can do it. Anyone can become just a victim of his own curiosity, and then no help will be coming. So even
when something is written about sudden practices, a basic link is always missing.

So those who begin practices through scriptures are always in danger, and many times it happens that

they just go mad -- because a missing link is always bound to be there, and that missing link is always
supplied by word of mouth from the teacher to the disciple. And it is a private and secret process, the
missing link. because that is the key. No scripture is really complete and no scripture can ever be really
complete, because those who know can never write a thing completely. Something must remain hidden, as a
key, so no one can use it. You can read about it, you can comment on it, you can write a thesis upon it, but
you cannot practise it because a certain key is not given in the scripture itself. Or, if it is given, it is given in
such a way that you cannot decode it; the technique to decode it is not given in it.

So nothing about sudden practices -- but you can do something gradually. And this mirror meditation is

a very powerful method -- very powerful -- to know one's own abyss and to know one s own naked reality.
And once you have known it, you become the master. Then just say something, and things begin to take
shape. In that encounter, if you say, "I must die this moment," you will die that very moment. If you say, "I
must become a Buddha this very moment," you will become a Buddha that very moment. Time is not
required at all -- just a will.

You may begin to think that then it is very easy, but it is a difficult problem. First, to reach it is difficult,

though not so difficult, but to will in that moment is very difficult. Such a vital silence takes you over, you
cannot even think. Your mind cannot even move. You are in such awe, everything stops -- even breathing.
A very still moment, totally silent, and will becomes impossible. So one has to train oneself how to will in
that still moment -- how to will without words, how to will without thoughts. That is possible, but then one
has to practise for it.

You are looking at a flower: look at the flower, feel the beauty of it -- but don't use the word "beautiful",

not even in the mind. Look at it, let it be absorbed in you, reach to it, but don't use words. Feel the beauty of
it, but don't say, "It is beautiful," not even in the mind. Don't verbalize, and gradually you will become
capable of feeling a flower as beautiful without using the word.

Really, it is not difficult: it is natural. You feel first; then the word comes. But we are so habituated with

words that there is no gap. The feeling is there, and suddenly, you have not even felt, and the word comes.
So create a gap. Just feel the beauty of it, but don't use the word.

If you can dissociate words from feeling, then you can dissociate even feeling from Existence. Then let

the flower be there and you be there as two presences, but don't allow the feeling to come in. Don't even feel
now that the flower is beautiful. Don't feel! Let the flower be there and you be there arrowed in a deep
embrace without any ripple of feeling. Then you will feel beauty without feeling. Really, then you will be
the beauty of the flower. It will not be a feeling; you will be the flower. Then you have existentially felt
something. When you can do this, you can will. When everything is lost -- thought, words, feeling -- then
you can will existentially.

To help this will, many things have been used. One is that the seeker must constantly go on thinking,

"When the thing comes, when that happening happens, what am I going to be?" The sutras of the
Upanishads like "AHAM BRAHMASMI" -- I am the Brahman -- are not meant as literal statements. These
sutras are not meant as statements, they are not meant as philosophical theories, they are meant to engrave a
deep will in the very cells of your being. So when that moment comes, you don't need your mind to tell you,
"I am the Brahman." Your body begins to feel it, your cells begin to feel it, your every fibre begins to feel it:
"AHAM BRAHMASMI." And this feeling does not need to be created by you. It will have gone deep into
your existence. Then suddenly when you encounter the unconscious and the moment of will has come, and
you can become a creator -- your whole existence begins to vibrate "AHAM BRAHMASMI." And the
moment your existence begins to vibrate "AHAM BRAHMASMI," you become a Brahma -- you become!
Whatsoever you can feel, you become.

This should not be known as metaphysics -- it is not! It is an experience. So you can know it only

through experiencing. Do not decide whether it is right or wrong; do not think in terms of yes and no. Just
say, "Po -- okay," and make some effort. Just say, "Okay! It may be." Don't decide -- because we are very
hasty deciders. Someone will say, "No, it is not possible." Really, he is saying. "I am not going to try"; he is
not saying it is not possible. He is deceiving himself. He is saying, "I am not going to try," and because of
this "I am not going to try", how can it be possible? He is rationalizing for himself.

Someone else says, "Yes, it is possible. It has happened to many. It has happened to my guru, to my

teacher, it has happened to this one and that." He is also not going to try because he is making it a trivial

fact: "It has happened to many, so it is not such a thing for which one has to try!" He feels, "It can happen to
me also." No, don't say yes or no. Just take it as an experiment, a hypothesis, to be worked out. Religion is
not a given thing; one has to create it in oneself. It is not something which is given to you or which can be
given; it is something which you have to uncover in yourself.

So don't decide unless you experience, don t decide unless you know. Never decide beforehand.

Otherwise you can go on continuously listening to things, thinking about them, and doing nothing --
because thinking is not doing; thinking is just an escape from doing.

IS YOUR TECHNIQUE OF FAST BREATHING A SUDDEN TECHNIQUE OR A GRADUAL ONE?

It is gradual! It is gradual! Really, sudden techniques cannot be given publicly. They cannot be given!

And for sudden techniques one has to bracket the whole life out, because for sudden techniques your totality
will be needed. For gradual techniques your totality is not needed. You can do them for one hour and then
remain in the world for twenty-three hours. But for sudden techniques your totality will be needed; you
cannot be allowed to do anything else. So the whole life has to be just bracketed out, and you have to be
totally for the technique. The whole consciousness must be prepared for it because even a single part
remaining unprepared will prove dangerous -- and anything can prove dangerous because the moment is so
potential. The moment is so potential, you must be purified of all that goes on around you. So you have to
bracket -- bracket everything out. With gradual methods religion can be one thing among others. For sudden
methods religion has to be totalitarian; nothing else can be allowed.

When someone would go to Gurdjieff, he would ask, "Are you ready to die for it? Nothing less will do.

Are you ready to die for it?" That means, "Are you ready to leave everything for it?" Total consciousness is
needed. It is not necessary to die, but one has to be ready to die for it.

For gradual methods, such is not the requirement. You can go on living and doing something. By and

by, the doing will gradually become greater, and without even becoming aware, some day you will become
ready to die for it. But this growth is like the growth of a pregnancy: by and by. Even the mother is not
aware of what is going on, of what is happening. The child goes on growing and growing and growing.
After nine months the child has grown so much that now the mother is not needed at all. That's why he
comes out. The mother feels so much pain! The reason is not only physical: deep down it is psychological.
It is because her own child has grown so much that it is leaving her. This is the first betrayal. Now many
betrayals will follow. This is the first birth pain; now many will follow. When the child becomes sexually
mature, he will again leave his mother -- for some other woman.

So birth is a constant process, and a mother has to go through many pains. And if she cannot understand

it, then she unnecessarily creates troubles. She creates them! Even when the child is going to be born, the
mother creates trouble: she contracts her whole body. That's why the pain is created; otherwise bodily pain
is unnecessary. It is really a conflict. The mother is not ready to give up and the child is forcing to come out.
That's why many children have to take their birth in the night -- eighty percent, more than eighty percent --
because when the mother is sleepy she resists less.

Now there are scientific methods and psychological ones also. If a mother can be persuaded to

cooperate, there is no pain. In Paris, Dr. Lorenzo has worked with many, many methods -- psychological,
persuasive methods. He has delivered thousands of births, helped mothers, and there was no pain at all --
not at all! The method is to cooperate with the child coming out -- not to resist, but to cooperate; to help the
child; to feel that you have to help the child to come out.

Lorenzo may persuade many mothers, but there is a still greater problem when the child goes to another

woman. He will have to persuade the mother not to feel hurt. Rather, she should help the child to go to
someone else. She should help, cooperate, because it is a second birth and she is unnecessarily troubled.

With gradual methods you grow like a pregnancy -- by and by. Then suddenly one day you are reborn.

With sudden methods it is different -- totally different. One needs to give up everything for sudden methods.
Sannyas, in the old days, began with sudden methods. That's why it was necessary to leave everything.
Particularly in India, we emphatically pressed the point that no one should leave for sannyas unless he was
very old. There is a psychological reason: when you are so old, you can leave life totally. Then total
renunciation becomes easy -- because in a subtle way life is renouncing you, so you can renounce life. You
have become a dry leaf. Now you can leave the tree without hurting the tree or any hurt to yourself. The tree

will not even know when the dry leaf has dropped. Pull out a young leaf that is fresh and green, and the tree
is hurt and the leaf also. The wound may remain forever. So for sudden methods, it was decided that a man
should leave only when life itself was leaving him. Then he could leave totally. With gradual methods, it
was not necessary.

Now in the world, sudden methods have become impossible because there are really no authentic

schools, no communities, intimate communities, where you can practise sudden methods. So it is not
necessary for someone to renounce the world and go to the hills or the forest. Now you can remain wherever
you are and practise gradual methods. The achievement is the same; only more time is needed for gradual
methods, less time for sudden methods.

OSHO, WHAT TYPE OF SOCIETY CAN DEVELOP INDIVIDUALS IN WHOM THE SUBCONSCIOUS MIND
IS UTILITARIAN AND EASILY DISPENSABLE?

It is a complex problem, multi-dimensional, but some basic points can be understood. One: a good

society is possible only if children are not taught the antagonism, the dichotomy, between body and
consciousness. The first thing is that they must not be taught this. It must not be said to children, "You are
in the body"; it must not be said, "You possess the body." It must be said, "You are the body." And when I
say that it must be said, "You are the body," I don't mean a materialist conception. Really, only out of this
can a spiritual being be born. The unity must not be disturbed.

The child is born as a unity, but we separate him in two. The first separation comes between body and

consciousness. We sow the seeds of schizophrenia. Now he will never be able to regain the lost unity easily.
The more he grows, the more the gap will grow, and a person with a gap between himself and his body is a
person who is not normal. The greater the gap, the more insane he will be, because, again, body and mind is
a linguistic fallacy. We are psychosomatic -- body-mind both, simultaneously. It is not possible to bifurcate
the two. They are not two -- one wave.

So for a good society the first thing is not to create schizophrenic minds, not to create divided minds --

because the first division comes between body and mind, then other divisions follow. Then you have taken a
route for divisions. Then mind will again be divided and body will again be divided.

This is a strange fact. I wonder whether you feel that you are divided into consciousness and body. Then

the body is divided into upper and lower, and the lower is "bad" and the upper is "good". From where does
the upper begin and from where does the lower begin? We are never at ease with our lower bodies -- never!
That's why there is so much nonsense about clothes -- so much nonsense! We cannot be naked. Why?
Because the moment you are naked the body become one. We have two sorts of clothes -- one for the lower
part, another for the upper part. This division of clothes is basically connected with the division of the body.
If you are standing naked, which is lower, which is higher? And how do you divide? You are one!

So those who divide man are not ready for man to be at ease with his nakedness. And this is only a

beginning because there are more nakednesses inside. If you are not ready to be naked about your body,
true, then you cannot ever be true for other, deeper layers. How can you be? If you cannot face even your
body's nakedness, how can you face your naked consciousness.

This clothing is not just clothing. It has a philosophy and a very insane one. Then the body is divided,

then the mind is divided. then the conscious, unconscious, subconscious -- and divisions go on growing. In
the beginning a child is born as a unity, and the same child dies as a crowd -- as a crowd! totally a
madhouse! Everywhere he has been divided, and between these divisions there is constant conflict, struggle,
and the energy is dissipated. And you really never die; you kill yourself. We are all committing suicide,
because this dissipation of energy is suicide. So it is rare that a person dies -- rare! Everyone has killed
himself, poisoned himself. Different are the methods, different are the tricks to kill oneself, but the
beginning is the division.

So a good society, a moral society, a religious society, will not allow its children to be divided. But how

do we create a division? How do we begin? When does the division come in?

Now psychologists are very well aware that the moment the child touches his genitalia, his sex organs,

the division begins The moment the child touches his sex organs, the whole society becomes aware that
something wrong is going to happen. The parents, mother and father, brothers, the whole family, everyone
begins to be aware of it. In their eyes, in their gestures, by their hands, they all say, "No, do not touch!"

The child cannot conceive of this. He is a unity or she is a unity. He cannot conceive why he cannot

touch his body. What is wrong? He doesn't know that man is born in sin. He doesn't know the Bible, he
doesn't know any religion, he doesn't know any teachers, moral teachers, he doesn't know any mahatmas.
He cannot feel how a part of the body is just to be avoided.

The problem becomes greater because sex organs are the most sensitive part of the body and the most

pleasant. To touch them is the first experience of pleasure for the child, the first experience of his own body
-- that the body can give pleasure, that the body is pleasant, that the body has a value. Now psychologists
say that even a three-month-old baby can create orgasm -- the deepest. He can feel his sex organs to their
climax, and his whole body begins to vibrate. This is the first experience of his body, but it becomes
poisoned because parents will not allow it. Why can they not allow it? Because they were not allowed.
There is no reason -- because they were not allowed.

With this the body is divided, and the mind and body are divided. The child becomes afraid, fearful, and

guilt is born. He will touch, but now he has to hide it. So we have made a small child a criminal. He will do
it because it is natural, but now he will be afraid whether someone is looking or not, whether mother is
present or not. If no one is there then he will touch, but now this touch will not give the same pleasure that it
could have given -- because guilt is there. He is afraid! He is fearful!

This fear continues for the whole life. No one is at ease with his sex experience. The fear continues.

Then he will go many many times into the sex act -- but never will he feel the fulfillment and the deep
ecstasy of it. He will never feel it; it has become impossible. You have poisoned the very root, and he will
feel guilty.

We feel guilty because of sex; we are "sinners" because of sex. You have created the division, the basic

division that in the body you have to choose: some parts are "good" and some parts are "bad". What
nonsense! Either the whole body is good or the whole body is bad; because nothing is separate in the body.
The same blood goes through the whole body; the same nervous system is there. Everything is one inside,
but for the child now there is a division. And another thing: you have poisoned his first joy. Now he will
never feel joyful.

People come daily to me, and I know that their basic problem is not meditation, their basic problem is

not religion -- their basic problem is sex. And I feel very helpless as to how to help them -- because if I
really want to help them, then they will not come to me again. They will become afraid of me because they
are afraid of sex. So sex must not be talked about! Talk about God, talk about something else -- never talk
about sex. And their problem is not God at all! If the problem was of God then it could be easily helped, but
God is not the problem. Their basic problem remains sex. And they cannot enjoy anything because they
cannot enjoy the first gift that was given by nature, by Divine forces. They do not have the first gift of bliss,
so they cannot enjoy.

I have felt so many times that a person who cannot enjoy sex cannot go deep in meditation -- because

wherever there is happiness he becomes afraid. The association goes deep. So you have created a barrier.
Now he will divide the mind also because he cannot accept the sex part in the mind. Sex is both body and
mind. Everything is both! In you, everything is both -- remember it constantly. Sex is both body and mind,
so the mind part of sex has to be suppressed. That suppressed part will become the unconscious. The forces,
the thoughts, the moralistic preachings which will suppress it, will become the subconscious. A very small
portion of the mind which is conscious will remain in your hands. It is useful only for the day-today routine,
not for anything more. At least it is not useful to live deeply. You can exist, that's all. You can vegetate, you
can earn, you can build a house, make a living. but you cannot know life because of the whole mind, nine
parts out of ten are just denied. You can never be total, and only a whole man is holy. Unless you are whole,
you can never be holy.

So the first, elementary thing to be done to create a new society, a better society, a religious society, is

not to create division. This is the greatest sin -- to create division. Let the child grow as a unity. Let him
grow as a oneness, at ease with everything that is inside him, and the sooner he will able to transcend all: he
will be able to transcend sex; he will be able to transcend the instinctive nature. But he will be able to
transcend them as a unity, never as a division. That is the point. He will be able to transcend them because
he is so whole, so powerful, so undividedly one, that he can transcend anything.

Whatsoever becomes a disease, he can just throw it. Whatsoever becomes just an obsession, he can just

throw it. He is forceful, one. A great energy is undividedly his -- he can change anything! But a divided
child cannot do anything. Really, in a divided child the conscious mind is a minor part, and the unconscious
is the major. For his whole life a divided child is fighting a major energy with a minor one. He is bound to

be defeated continuously. And then he feels frustrated. And then he says, "Okay, this world is just a
misery."

This world is not a misery -- remember well! You are divided, so you create misery out of this world.

You are fighting with yourself so you become miserable.

So the first thing: do not create divisions. Let the child grow as a unity. And the second thing: let the

child be trained more for flexibility than for fixed attitudes -- flexibility. What do I mean when I say
flexibility? Don't train him in solid, watertight compartments. Never say that this is bad and that is good,
because in life it is a flux. The thing which is good this moment may be bad the next moment, and the thing
which is bad in this situation may be good in another.

So train the child to be more aware, to find out what is the case. Never fix labels! Don't say a

Mohammedan is bad because he is a Mohammedan and a Hindu is good because he is a Hindu. Don t say
things like that, because bad and good are not fixed things. Don't give fixed attitudes. Train him to be more
aware, to find out who is good and who is bad. But it is difficult, and it is easy to give labels. You live with
labels and categorized divisions. You put someone in a category:"Okay, he is a Hindu. He is bad or he is
good. He is a Mohammedan, and he is good or he is bad." The matter is decided without looking at the
individual. The label decides. Don t give fixed attitudes; give flexible awareness. Don't say this is bad, don't
say this is good. Just say that one has to find out constantly what is good, what is bad. Train the mind to find
out, to inquire.

This flexibility of attitude has many dimensions. Don't fix the child into "monogamous" attitudes. Don't

say to the child, "Love me because I am your mother." It may create an incapacity in the child, and he will
not be able to love anyone else. Then it happens that grown-up children -- I call them grown-up children --
continue to be fixed. So you cannot love your wife because deep inside you can love only your mother. But
your wife is not your mother and your mother cannot be your wife, so you continue to be fixed -- a mother
fixation. You continue to be fixed! You go on expecting things from your wife as if she is your mother --
not consciously. If she does not behave like a mother, then you are not at ease. And the problem becomes
more complex. If she begins to behave like a mother, then too you are not at ease because she must behave
like your wife.

A mother should never say, "Love me because I am your mother." She must make her child love more

persons. The more the child is "polygamous", the more abundant his life will be. He will never feel fixed.
Wherever he moves he will be able to love. Whomsoever he comes in contact with he will be able to love.
Don't tell him that a mother is to be loved or a sister is to be loved or a brother is to be loved. Don't tell him,
"He is a stranger, so you need not love him. He doesn't belong to our family, he doesn't belong to our
religion, he doesn't belong to our country, so don't love him." You are crippling the child. Tell him, "To love
is a bliss! -- so go on loving. The more you love, the more you will grow." A person who can love more is
more enriched.

We are all poor. We are all poor because we cannot love. This is a fact -- that if you love more persons,

you become capable of loving anyone. If you love only one person, in the end you will not be capable of
even loving that one, because your capacity to love will be so narrowed down that it will freeze. It is as if
we are telling a tree to cut all the roots and let there be only one root. If you tell the tree, "Let there be only
one root for your love. Let this be your only love -- get everything from this root," the tree is going to die.

We have created a monogamous mind, not loving. That's why there are so many wars, so much cruelty,

so much violence, in many, many names -- religion, politics, ideology. Any nonsense will do as long as you
find something to be violent about. And then see how people become sharp: their eyes look brilliant when
there is war, when everyone is just freed from the taboo against killing. Then you can kill anybody. So you
feel more joy when you kill some. body -- you never feel joy when you love someone.

Go and see in Bangladesh how joyful they are. Go and see anywhere where there is much killing: see

the joy. And when there is no killing, see the limpedness, the sluggishness, the lustreless eyes. No one is at
ease; life is just meaningless. Create a situation for somebody to kill someone, and everyone is alive. Why?
We have atrophied the capacity to love, and a child is capable of loving anyone. A child is born to love the
whole world, a child is born to love everything, a child is born to love the whole universe -- with such a big
capacity that if you narrow it down then the child has begun to die from that very moment.

But why this monopoly? Why this possessive attitude? It is a vicious circle. The mother is not fulfilled

herself. She has not loved, she has not been loved, so now she becomes possessive of her child. At least she
must turn the child's love totally to herself. It must not go anywhere. She must break all the roots possible.
The child must belong totally to her. This is violence, this is not love. And psychologists say that the

beginning seven years are the most basic. Once something has been done, it is next to impossible to undo it
again -- really impossible to undo it, because it has become the basic structure, the foundation of the child.
Now he will do everything based on this structure: this structure will have come to be the basis of his life.
So allow everyone to be non-possessive, loving more -- without any conditions, without any qualifications.

This should not mean that because someone is lovable then love him. Rather, the emphasis should be:

you be loving. Love in itself is beautiful and very deeply fulfilling. So love -- whatsoever you feel,
wherever you feel, love. This fluidity of love will make you conscious of greater life, and that greater life
leads to the Divine.

Love is the foundation of prayer. Unless you have loved and loved abundantly, how can you pray? How

can you feel grateful? For what can you feel grateful? What is there to feel grateful about? If you have not
loved, what is there to feel grateful to God for? So life is the beginning, love is the peak. And if you have
loved, suddenly you become aware of a very love-filled universe. If you have not loved, then everywhere
there is hate, jealousy. But up to now our emphasis has always been: you must get love. So everyone feels
frustrated when he is not getting love, and no one feels frustrated when he is not giving love. The real
emphasis must be: you must give love -- not get love. Everyone is trying to snatch love from somewhere. It
cannot be snatched. You can just give. You can just go on giving. And life is not indifferent. If you give, life
returns thousandfold. But you must not be concerned with returning; you must go on giving.

So every child should be trained more for love, and less for mathematics and calculations and geography

and history. He must be trained more for love, because geography is not going to be the peak, neither is
mathematics going to be the peak, nor knowing history, nor technology. Nothing is comparable to love.
Love is going to be the peak. And if you miss love but everything else is there, you will be just a vacant
waste, just emptiness. Then anxiety is created.

So the second thing I say: love must be deeply engrained. No effort should be avoided which can lead a

child to be more loving. But our structure will not allow it because we are afraid. If a person begins to love
more, then what will happen to marriage? What will happen to this and that? We are concerned. Really, we
never think of what is happening to marriage. What is marriage now, or what has it been ever? Just a painful
suffering -- a long suffering, with false smiling faces. It has simply proved a misery. At the most it can be
just a convenience.

When I say this, I don't mean that if you can love more people you will not go into marriage. As far as I

think, a person who can love more will not go into marriage only for love. He will go into marriage for
deeper things. Please understand me: if a person loves many people, then there is no reason to marry
someone only because of love -- because he can love many people without marriage, so there is no reason.
We have forced everyone to go into marriage because of love. Because you cannot love outside it, so we
have unnecessarily forced love and marriage to be together -- unnecessarily. Marriage is for deeper things --
even more deep: for intimacy, for a "coinherence", to work something which cannot be done alone, which
can be done together, which needs a togetherness, a deep togetherness. Because of this love-starved society,
we fall into marriage out of romantic love.

Love can never really be a great base for marriage because love is fun and play. If you marry someone

for love, you will be frustrated -- because soon the fun is gone, the newness is gone, and boredom sets in.
Marriage is for deep friendship, deep intimacy. Love is implied in it, but it is not alone. So marriage is
spiritual. It is spiritual! There are many things which you can never develop alone. Even your own growth
needs someone to respond -- someone so intimate that you can open yourself totally to him or her.

Marriage is not sexual at all. We have forced it to be sexual. Sex may be there, it may not be there.

Marriage is a deep spiritual communion. And if such a marriage happens, then we give birth to very
different souls -- very qualitatively different souls. When a child is born out of this intimacy, he can have a
spiritual base. But our marriages are just sexual -- just a sexual arrangement. And out of this arrangement,
of course, what can be born? Either our marriages are a sexual arrangement or they are for momentary
romantic love.

Really, romantic love is ill. Because you cannot love many you go on accumulating the capacity to love.

Then you are overflooded with it. Then whenever you find someone and the opportunity, this overflooded
love is projected. So an ordinary woman becomes like an angel, an ordinary man becomes divine, looks
divine, like a god. But when the flood has gone and you have become normal, then you see that you have
been deceived. He is just an ordinary man and she is just an ordinary woman.

This romantic madness is created by our monogamous training. If a person is allowed to love, he never

accumulates tensions which can be projected. So romance is possible only in a very diseased society. In a

really healthy society there will be no romance: there will be love, but no romance. And if there is no
romance, then marriage will be on a deeper level and it will never be frustrating. And if marriage is not only
for love but for more intimate togetherness -- for an "I-thou" relationship so that you can both grow not as
"I's" but as a "we" -- then marriage is really a training for egolessness. But we don't know about that kind of
marriage at all. Whatsoever we know is just ugliness, just painted faces and everything dead within.

And finally: a child must be trained positively, never negatively. A positive emphasis must be there in

everything -- only then can a child really grow and become an individual. What do I mean by "positive
emphasis"? Our emphasis is always negative. I say, "I can love someone, but I cannot love all." This is a
negative training. On the contrary, I should be able to say, "I can love all, only not this one." The loving
capacity must go for many. Of course, there are individuals you cannot love, so don't force yourself to love
them. But your emphasis now is that "I can love only one." Majnu says, "I only love Laila. I cannot love
anyone else." This is negative. The whole world is denied. A positive attitude will be this: "Positively I
cannot love this one, but I can love the whole world."

Always think of greater positiveness in every realm. If I am negative in my attitudes, then I am

surrounded by my own negativities, I see everywhere negations: "This man is not good because he lies" --
but even if he lies, he is not just lies. He is more than that. Why not look to the greater part? Why be
emphatically concerned with lies? And we say, "That man is a thief" -- but even if a man is a thief, he is
more than that. Even a thief can have positive qualities, and, really, he has them -- because without some
positive qualities you cannot even be a thief. So why not be emphatically concerned with his positive
qualities?

A thief is courageous, so why not be concerned with his courage? Why not appreciate courage? Even a

person who speaks lies is intelligent, because you cannot speak lies if you are not intelligent. Lies require a
deep intelligence which truth never requires. You can be just an idiot and you can speak the truth, but to
speak lies you need intelligence, a cleverness and a wider range of consciousness, because if you speak one
lie you will have to speak a hundred. and then you will have to remember them all. So why not be
concerned with the positive qualities? Why emphasize negatives!

But our society has created negative minds. And you can find negativity in anyone. It is bound to be

there because life cannot exist with only positives. Negatives are needed: they balance. So there are
negatives, and if you train children for negatives they will live their entire lives in a negative universe.
Everyone will be bad, and when everyone is bad you begin to feel egoistic -- only you are good.

So we train our children to find faults with everything. Then they begin to be "good". We force them to

be good, and then they feel that everyone is bad. But how can someone be good in a bad world? It is not
possible. You can be good only in a good world. A good society can come out only with a positive mind. So
bring out the positivity of the mind. And even if there is something negative, always try to see something
positive in it -- there is bound to be. And if a child becomes capable of seeing the positive even in the
negative, then you have given him something. He will be happy. If you have given him a negative mind and
he becomes capable of finding the negative in everything positive, you have created hell for him. His whole
life he is going to be in hell.

Heaven is to live in a positive world; hell is to live in a negative world. This whole earth has become a

hell because of negative minds. The mother cannot say to her child, "That woman is beautiful." How can
she say it? Only she is beautiful; no one else is. A husband cannot say to his wife, "Look! That woman
passing on the street -- how beautiful!" He cannot say it! He says it, but inside. And if the wife is with him,
he is even afraid to say it inside. A husband moving with his wife is really afraid to look here and there. He
cannot look. That's why he is never ready to move with his wife. It is such a hell. But why? If someone is
beautiful why not tell it?

A mother cannot listen to her child reporting that someone is beautiful. She will try to make him feel

that only she is beautiful and the whole world is ugly. And ultimately the child will find that his mother is
the ugliest, because how can you create beauty in an ugly world? So a father goes on training him, a teacher
goes on saying, "Only I am the possessor of truth."

Someone was here only two days before and she told me. "I want to listen to you, but my guru says,

'This is sin. You belong to me, so how can you go anywhere else? And when I can give you the Truth, what
is the need?' " Sooner or later this guru cannot remain a guru, cannot remain a teacher, because he is
teaching negativity. And this negativity is bound to rebound on him ultimately.

In Zen, teachers will send their disciples to their opponents. Someone will remain with a teacher for one

year, and when he is ready the teacher will say, "Now you go to my opponent -- because something I have

said, the remaining he can say, the other part. So you go."

This teacher will always be remembered as a teacher; you can never disrespect him. How can you

disrespect him? He sends you to his opponent just so you can find the other part: "I have told something, but
this is not the whole." And no one can tell the whole -- mm? -- the whole is so big.

So create a positive attitude, and a better world can come out of it. But this is very rudimentary. This is a

very complex subject, so sometime we will discuss it more.

The Ultimate Alchemy, Vol 1

Chapter #7

Chapter title: The upward Flow of the Mind

21 February 1972 pm in Bombay, India

Archive code: 7202215

ShortTitle: ULTAL107

Audio:

Yes

Video:

No

Length: 99 mins

UNMANI BHAAVAH PADDYAM
THE UPWARD FLOW OF THE MIND IS PADDYAM -- THE WATER OF DIVINE WORSHIP.

THE MIND is the bridge between matter and consciousness, between without and within, between the

gross and the subtle. When I say mind is the bridge, I mean many things. Man comes to the world through
mind; man comes to the body through mind; man comes to desires through mind. So wherever you reach,
the reaching is always through the mind. If you create a hell for yourself, you create it through mind. If you
create a heaven, that also is through mind.

One of the Zen patriarchs, Hui-Hai, has said, "Mind is heaven and mind is hell." So whatsoever you are

or whatsoever you can be, it will depend ultimately on how your mind works. This working can create
something for you which is not; this working can reveal to you that which is. So a mind can create a very
illusionary world around it: it is capable. It can dream, and it can dream so real that you cannot even detect
that whatsoever is seen and perceived is not real.

So mind has a projective force; it can project. That which is not, mind can create. And because mind can

create that which is not, it can forget that which is. It can just be in such a state that the reality is never in
any contact with it; and whatsoever happens, it depends only on the mind. So the mind has to be taken as
the root of everything that one can experience. Even if one has to know the Divine, one has to go through
mind. Of course, that going is difficult because that going implies dropping of the mind. Even if dropping of
the mind is needed, it is through mind -- because unless you drop the mind you will never be able to know
the true.

Mind is everywhere, either positively or negatively. Whatsoever you are doing -- creating an illusory

world or discovering the real creating a madness for yourself or creating a meditative state -- it is all through
mind. Wherever you go, you go through the bridge of the mind. Even if you have to come to yourself, it will
be through mind. Of course, the coming will be negative; you will have to negate mind. You will have to
come back, and the same steps will have to be taken -- only the direction will be different. If I go from my
home, there are steps which lead me away. If I am returning back, the same steps will lead me back -- only
the direction will be different. So if you can understand how mind goes out, you know that the same path is
to be followed back.

Secondly, in Indian symbology, "upward" is synonymous with "inward", and "downward" is

synonymous with "outward". When we say "upward" we mean inward; they both mean the same. The more
inward you go, the more upward; the more outward you go, the more downward. These two are different
symbols. The Chinese mind has always used "downward" as synonymous with "inward", and "upward" as
synonymous with "outward". So whenever Lao Tzu would speak he would never use "upward"; he would
say, "Come downward," and by down he means come within. So the within for Lao Tzu is just like an
abyss: you fall in.

Indian symbology is different. We use upward for inward. For us the inward is not like an abyss, it is

like a peak. Both can be used because symbols are just symbols, they indicate; more than that is
meaningless. So it has always been a problem. The Upanishads always talk of upward, and the symbol is
fire -- fire constantly running upward. For Lao Tzu and Taoists, water is the symbol -- water running
downward, finding the most downward position possible. It can rest only when the deepest abyss has been
found. But fire will rest only with the sun. It will go upward, upward, to the invisible upwardness.

But there is no contradiction. Really, whenever persons like Lao Tzu or Zarathustra or Jesus speak, they

may use contradictory terms but they are never contradictory. They cannot be, that is impossible. So if their
words are contradictory, that only shows their type, their choice, their individuality, their way of saying
things -- nothing more. But pundits, scholars, can make much out of these apparent contradictions. And
whenever we are talking about the Absolute, the Ultimate, one thing must be understood very clearly: you
can use either of the extremes to express it, and each extreme is as valid as the other.

For example, the Upanishads use for the Divine the word "Absolute". This is one extreme, that of

positivity -- the Perfect, the Absolute. Buddha uses for that same state and the same realization,
"Nothingness" -- the other extreme. Totally opposite as far as words go, but as far as the realization is
concerned, they both mean the same. But it created much confusion.

Buddha appeared to be absolutely contradictory to the Hindu mind. He was not. He was one of the

purest Hindus possible, but he used a negative word. That was his liking, and it is good not to discuss
likings -- because one is as valid or as invalid as the other. Both can be used. Either you say "the infinite" or
you say "the zero" -- both are infinite. If you take it in the beginning, it is zero. If you take it in the end, it is
infinite. Both mean the same thing.

Just like this, Buddha and Mahavir, both contemporaries, used very contradictory language. Mahavir

says, "To know the Self is the ultimate knowledge, the wisdom. To know the Self is the wisdom." And
Buddha says, "To believe in the self is the only ignorance." Mahavir says, "Only the Self is," and Buddha
says, "Only the self is the deception, the most false thing." Nothing can be more contradictory, so Jains and
Buddhists have been fighting constantly for twenty-five centuries. But the whole conflict is based just on
linguistic fallacies -- because Mahavir uses the word "Self", negating everything of the ego in it. He says,
"You become the Self when there is no ego." So really, "Self" becomes just like "no-self". If there is no ego,
the Self becomes just like no-self. And Buddha uses the "self" as the ego and he says the self means the ego,
so the most perfect ego means "the self". Then the meaning becomes clear. So both are right. When Buddha
says, "To believe in a self is to be ignorant," he is right. And Mahavir is also right when he says, "To know
the Self is the ultimate wisdom." The contradiction is just apparent.

Lao Tzu says, "To go down to the last is to reach the basic Existence." He begins from the beginning:

"Drop down back to the very beginning, to the original source. The original source is deep down." The
Upanishads say, "Go up to the last where the peak is achieved." Lao Tzu says, "Go down to the original
source," and the Upanishads say, "Go up to the ultimate possibility, to the very end. Achieve the potentiality
to the very end; make the potentiality absolutely actual." The beginning and end are not two separate things.
Really, no end can end unless it reaches again to the beginning. And the beginning begins only where the
end ends.

Life moves in a circle, so if you begin a circle, the point of beginning will be the point of the ending

also. Life moves in a circle, so you can say the same point is the beginning and the end both. So the upward
is not contradictory to the downward. The Lao Tzuan downward and the Upanishadic upward -- both mean
the same. Only the words differ.

If we can penetrate to the meaning beyond the words, only then can we conceive of and comprehend

these minds. These minds are living in such experiences which cannot really be expressed through ordinary
words. But they have to use ordinary words, so they can use only ordinary words with a very different
meaning, with a very different connotation. So one thing more: when the Upanishads say upward,
remember, it is the same as inward. The more you go in, the more up, and vice versa: the more up you go,

the more in. What is this upwardness or inwardness? And why should the sutra say that this upward flow of
the mind is the only water by which you can worship the feet of the Divine? So many things are implied.
One is that it is useless to use just water -- it is useless!

Al-hillaj Mansoor, a Sufi mystic, was killed. When his hands were cut, blood began to flow, and he used

that blood as Mohammedans use water for wazu -- cleaning the body before going to the worship. They use
water, but Mansoor used blood. And when he made the gesture of wazu, someone asked from the crowd,
"Mansoor, have you gone mad? What are you doing?"

Mansoor said, "For the first time I am doing wazu, cleaning myself with my own blood -- because how

can you clean yourself with water?"

He gives a deeper significance. Really, he means that unless you die, how can you purify yourself for

the prayer? Wazu through blood means dying. Only dying can be a real cleansing, a real purity. And when
you die, you become able to pray. Unless you die, you cannot pray. So the courage to die becomes a basic
requirement for prayer.

This sutra says, "The upward flow of the mind is the water for the Divine feet." No other water will do.

It goes even deeper than Mansoor's blood, because blood is not so deep -- it is only skin-deep. You can do
wazu with your blood; it is not so deep yet. But the upward flowing mind is the deepest possibility, for two
reasons: basically, the mind is downward flowing; basically, the trend is to flow downward because it is
easy. The downward flow is always easy. The upward needs effort; the upward needs a fight with the
gravitation; the upward means austerity. You cannot flow upward -- unless you change your nature
completely. It is a transformation! The downward flow is but natural, it is in the very nature of things. So
mind has a downward flow naturally.

Think of it in this way: if you want to think and concentrate on the Divine, you will feel much difficulty.

The mind will be wavering constantly. You will not be able to concentrate even for a single moment, really.
It will be going here and there. Concentration will not be possible, contemplation will not be possible,
meditation will not be possible. Mind will not be ready. Even with much effort, you will find it is not
coming to the Divine, towards the Divine. But think of sex, and mind is absorbed. No need to concentrate --
it concentrates. No need to make any effort -- mind flows easily.

Really, we don't know anything else except sex by which we can understand what concentration means.

So it happens always that whenever a person can concentrate on any other thing, sex will not be a problem
for him -- whenever! Even if he is just a scientist, a research-worker, working in his lab, if he can
concentrate on his work then sex will not be a problem in his life at all. But if you cannot concentrate on
anything else, then your mind will be flowing through the channel of sex constantly.

One thing must be understood: when you are thinking about sex, you are totally absorbed. There is no

wavering. You even forget that you are thinking about sex -- you may remember afterwards. Even this much
wavering is not there. You forget that you are different and that this procession of sexual thoughts and
images is different. You become one with them. This is what is meant when bhaktas say, "the constant
remembering of the Divine -- without you, without 'I'." The same phenomenon occurs, only the object
changes. It is not sex now; the object becomes Divine. And unless the Divine becomes as absorbing as sex
is naturally, you cannot flow upward.

So the upward flow is an effort: you have to pull yourself together for it. The downward flow is easy.

That's why, whenever you feel tense, sex becomes a relaxation, a relief -- because every tension means that
you have been pulling yourself together towards something which is not natural. Then if you can relax to
the downward flow, you will feel a relief. So in the West particularly, sex has become just a relief -- just a
relief from tensions. It is, and it is because when you flow downward no effort is needed. So sex is used by
many, really by ninety-nine percent of people, as a tranquillizer. If you move in sex then you can sleep well.
Why? Because when the mind is flowing downward your whole body is relaxed. Unless you are relaxed m
the same way when your mind is going upward, you are not a religious person at all.

That is the difference between a secular mind and a religious mind. A secular mind is at ease with

downward flowing, relaxed. A religious mind is only relaxed when upward flowing. Whenever a religious
mind has to flow downward, it becomes tense. Ultimately, when the upward flow is achieved, the same
effort will be needed to flow downward -- even more effort, because upwardness, even when arduous, is
still upwardness, and downwardness. even with no effort, is downwardness. And when one has to come
down with effort, the effort becomes a thousandfold more arduous.

For a person like Ramakrishna, even to eat is an effort. For a person like Buddha, even to move is an

effort, even to be in the body is an effort. This effort means that the whole nature has become transformed.

That which was downward before has now become upward, and that which was upward before has become
downward. A religious mind flows upward as if the upwardness has just become downwardness. Meera is at
ease when she is dancing and singing for Krishna, but when her husband Rana is there she is not at ease,
because Rana now is a downward flow. This upward flow is bound to be an effort for us. Unless you will it,
you will not achieve it.

Now, again, you will find a conflict between Tao and the Upanishads. Lao Tzu says, "Effortlessness is

the means," and the Upanishads says, "Effort, total effort, is the means." When Lao Tzu says
"effortlessness", he means be so still that not a single movement is there, because any effort is a movement,
any effort is a tension, any effort means that you are outside. So when Lao Tzu says "effortlessness", he is
using it to mean an absolutely relaxed state of mind -- do not do anything.

It is not so easy. It is as difficult as the upward flow -- rather, even more difficult, because we can

understand terms which imply doing, but we cannot understand terms which imply non-doing. Non-doing
for us is more arduous, but both are arduous and both try through different ways to achieve the same point.
If you become totally effortless, you achieve your innermost center -- because you cannot move! When
there is no movement you will drop down, down, down to the center. Every peripheral event is an effort.
When there is no effort, you will be down in your ultimate center.

The Upanishads again use a different way which is, of course, in logical relationship with their concept

of upwardness. They say absolute effort is needed. When you make an absolute effort, you will become
more tense, more tense, more tense, and there will come a moment when you will be nothing but tension.
You will be nothing but tension! Then there is nothing further. The ultimate has been achieved. Now you
are just a tension. When this climax comes, suddenly you will fall from the climax. You cannot go further;
you have come to the last limit. The tension has come to its ultimate, the maximum; it cannot go further.
When tension comes to a total climax, you suddenly relax and you reach the point which is meant by Tao,
by Lao Tzu -- effortlessness. You come to the center.

So there are two ways: either relax directly as Tao implies, or relax indirectly as the Upanishads say.

Create the tension to its ultimate, and then there will be relaxation. And I think the Upanishads are more
helpful, because we are tense and we understand the meaning, the language, the ways of tension. Tell
someone suddenly to relax and he cannot. Even relaxation becomes a new tension for him. I have seen a
book which is entitled YOU MUST RELAX. The very "must" will create tension. The word is
anti-relaxation -- "must". It becomes hard work: you must relax. So try now to relax, and your very effort to
relax will create more tensions. The title should rather be YOU MUST NOT RELAX, if you want to relax.

Relaxation cannot come directly to us. We are tense, so much tense. Relaxation doesn't mean anything;

we have not known it. Lao Tzu is right, but to follow him is very difficult. And he looks simple. Always
remember -- whenever something looks very simple it must be very complex, because in this world the most
simple is the most complex. And because it looks simple you may deceive yourself. So I can say, "Just
relax!" -- it will not happen.

I was working for ten years continuously with Lao Tzuan methods, so I was continuously teaching

direct relaxation. It was simple for me so I thought it would be simple for everyone. Then. by and by, I
become aware that it is impossible. I was in a fallacy: it was not possible. I would say, "Relax!" to those I
was teaching. They would appear to understand the meaning of the word, but they could not relax. Then I
had to devise new methods for meditation which create tension first -- more tension. They create such
tension that you become just mad. And THEN I say, "Relax."

When you have come up to the climax, your whole body. your whole mind, becomes hungry for

relaxation. With so much tension, you want to stop, and I go on pushing you to continue, continue to the
very end. Do whatsoever you can do to create tensions, and then, when you stop you just fall down from the
peak into a deep abyss. The abyss is the end, the effortlessness is the end, but the Upanishads use tension as
the means.

So be effortful to flow upward. Really, to use the word "flow" is not good because flow means

downward. How can you flow upward? You have to struggle. To flow upward means a struggle, constant
struggle. A moment is missed and you will find you are downward. For a moment you stop the struggle and
you will be flowing downward. It is a constant struggle against the current. So now understand what the
current is and against what current you have to struggle upward.

Your habits are the current, long habits, habits generated by many, many lives; not only human lives --

animal lives, vegetable lives. You are not isolated; you are part of a long succession and every habit is just
engrained. You have been flowing downward continuously for millennia, so it has become a deep habit.

Really, it has become your nature. You don't know any other nature. You know only one nature which goes
down and down and down. This downwardness is the current, and every cell of the body, every atom of the
mind is just part of a long, long succession of habits. They are so deep that we don't even remember from
where they came.

Now Western psychology has come to discover many, many new things. For example, now they have

discovered that whenever you feel violence, your violence is not in the mind alone -- it is deep in your teeth
and in your nails. So if you suppress violence, your teeth will absorb it and your jaw will become diseased,
because animals, whenever violent, use teeth and nails. Our nails belong to animality. our teeth belong to
animality -- a long animal heritage. So when someone is violent and suppresses it, the teeth become loaded.

Now they say that many diseases of the teeth are just because so much violence is suppressed -- many

diseases of the teeth! So a violent man has a different type of jaw. Just by seeing his jaw you can say that he
is violent. A person who has suppressed many. many violent fevers, upheavals, will begin to have a
particular type of jaw -- the violence will be there. One psychologist, Wilhelm Reich, would just push your
teeth by his hands, press your teeth by his hands, and suddenly your whole body would become violent.

Wilhelm Reich had to be continuously guarded against his patients because he would push, manipulate

and reactivate hidden violences just by touching. He became an expert. Simply by touching a particular part
in the jaw and teeth, he would bring many, many violences back to you which even you don't remember.
You would begin to scream, attack. He would say, "Now I have touched a built-in program. A built-in
program has been touched and reactivated."

Sometimes it happened, when Reich would push particular spots -- and he became aware of them by

continuously working for forty years on jaw spots, he became aware that every spot has a particular type of
violence hidden in it -- so he would push a particular spot, a particular chakra in the jaw, and a particular
violence would come out. He became capable of pushing you back so much that you would become just an
animal. Sometimes it happened that the patient would again not be a human being at all. He would fall back.
be reduced to an animal. He would begin to roar like an animal, attack like an animal.

This is the current. When you are violent, you alone are not violent: your whole history is violent. When

you are sexual, you alone are not sexual: the whole history is sexual, the whole succession. That's why it has
so much force. You are just a dead leaf in a big current. So what to do so that you can go upward against the
current? What to do?

Three things to be done: one, whenever mind begins to flow downward, become aware as early as

possible -- as early as possible! Someone has insulted you. For you to become angry, a little time is needed
because it is a mechanism. You will get angry, but after a gap. Things will happen like a flash. First you will
feel insulted. The moment you feel insulted, the second current will begin to flow: you will become angry.
At first the anger will not be conscious; first it will be just like a fever. Then it will become conscious. Then
you will begin to express or suppress it.

So when I say "the earlier the better", I mean when someone insults you, become aware as soon as you

begin to feel that you have been insulted. And whenever you become aware, just make an effort to stop.
Don't fall into the automatic track even for a single moment. Even a single moment's stop will help much.
Longer stops will help even more.

When Gurdjieff's father was dying he called his boy. He was just nine, and Gurdjieff remembered the

incident all his life. The father called him. He was the youngest child and the father said, "I am so poor, I
cannot give you anything, my boy. But one thing which my father gave to me I can give you. You may not
even be able to understand what it means now, because I myself was not able to understand what it meant
when my father gave it to me. But it proved the most precious thing in my life, so I am just giving it to you.
Preserve it! Sometime you may begin to understand it."

So Gurdjieff just listened. The father said, "Whenever you feel angry, never reply before twenty-four

hours. Reply, but let there be a gap of twenty-four hours." Gurdjieff followed his dying father's advice. It
became deeply impressed in his mind the very day his father died, and Gurdjieff said, "I have practised
many, many, many spiritual exercises, but that was the best. I never could be angry in my life, and that
changed the whole flow, the whole current, because I had to stick to the promise. Whenever someone would
insult me, I would create something, some situation. I would just tell him that I would come back after
twenty-four hours to reply, and I have never replied because it proved such nonsense to reply." Only a gap
was needed. And the whole life of George Gurdjieff became something different.

So even if you can begin with one thing in the current, you will begin to change the whole. Really, this

is one of the basic truths of esoteric religion: that you cannot change a part unless you change the whole.

And it works both ways. Either you change the whole, then the part will change; or you change even a
single part totally and the whole will follow -- because they are so integratedly related.

So begin anywhere. Find out your chief characteristic. Find out the chief characteristic for you: that

which is most forceful, which you cannot resist, that which tempts you and causes you to go down. It may
be sadness, it may be anger, it may be greed, it may be anything. Find out your chief characteristic, your
weakness. And begin with the stronger one, then the weaker ones can be won very easily. Begin with the
strongest. If anger is the strongest begin with anger. First, when you feel that you have been insulted, you
have been rejected, you have been hindered -- anything which creates anger -- just when you feel that "Now
the first step has been taken and I am feeling insulted," stop for a moment. Don't breathe: just stop the
breath wherever it is. If it is out, let it be out. If it is in, let it be in. Stop breathing for a moment, then release
the breath. Go in, and find out whether you have missed the thing or it is still there.

You will have missed it. The connection is missed. You will have given a gap to the automatic working.

Somewhere you have disjointed the mechanism, and breathing is wonderful to disjoin anything. Just stop
breathing, and there is a disjoining inside. Your feeling insulted and the mechanism of anger will not be
joined. And if they are missed even for a single moment, they are missed. Your mechanism will never know
that you have been insulted.

The earlier this happens, the better. There are even earlier stages -- they belong to the other, not to you.

When the other is insulting you, before feeling insulted look at him and feel that he is angry. Stop your
breath and look at him again, and you will not be insulted. He will insult you, but you will not be insulted.
You will not feel insulted because again there comes a gap. This gap is between him and you. Now he
cannot cross this gap; he cannot insult you. He will insult, but somewhere he has missed you. You are not
the target now. For him you are the target, but actually you are not. You can laugh, and if you laugh it is
better.

So first create a gap. Second: do something which is ordinarily never done in such situations. When

someone is insulting, no one laughs, no one smiles, no one thanks, no one hugs, embraces. Do something
which is never done! Then you are against the current, because the current is always that which is done, that
which is usually done. This is what the current means. Be unusual! Someone is beating you: laugh and feel
the difference -- not only in those who are beating you, but within yourself. If you can laugh you will feel
totally different. Try it -- something absurd. Then you disconnect the whole mechanism, you confuse the
whole mechanism, because the mechanism cannot understand what is happening. A mechanism is just a
mechanism. It may be very deep-rooted, but it is mechanical; it has no consciousness. So confuse your
animal. Don't allow him to push and pull and manipulate. Confuse the animal! The more you confuse him,
the less powerful he becomes -- and by "animal" I mean your past.

This is a rare experiment: to do something which is never done. When you are happy, do something

which is never done in happiness: be sad, act sad, be angry, act angry. Confuse the mechanism. Just don't
allow the mechanism to know everything that is to be done. Don't allow, and within a year your mechanism
will be at a loss. Someone will be insulting, and your mechanism will not know at all what to do. You have
broken from your past. So try! Every moment can be an experiment, and you will feel a sudden change in
your consciousness. When someone is insulting you, laugh and feel what is happening inside -- something
new you have never known.

I am reminded of a Zen monk, Rinzai: He is sleeping in his poor hut. A thief comes in at midnight. It is

a full-moon night and a thief comes in. The light of the moon is coming in, the doors are open. There is no
need to close the doors because he has nothing. He has only one blanket in which he is asleep. So the thief
goes around the hut and finds nothing. Rinzai is awake. He feels very sorry for the thief because there is
nothing. And he doesn't want to disturb him either, because he can give the blanket -- that is the only thing
-- but the thief will be disturbed. He may even run. So he suddenly laughs. The thief is stunned. Rinzai
throws the blanket over him and runs away. The thief follows. What has happened? The whole thing has
become just a confusion. So the thief follows him, catches him by the hand and asks him, "What are you
doing?"

He says, "I am just confusing my mechanism. You are not concerned at all. Don't worry. It was just a

coincidence that you came in. I was just experimenting with myself."

What to do? Traditional answers are always ready. Use your fantasy, use your imagination, because

your mechanism is the least imaginative thing -- the least imaginative! It is very much traditional and
orthodox. Understand what I am saying: it is orthodox, traditional. You have been angry the same way
always. Innovate something, use your imagination, be creative, and confuse the current. The more you are

capable of confusing the current, the more you will transcend it.

So the second thing: use unusual expressions. Don't allow the routine. The more you allow it, the more

powerful it goes on becoming.

The thief I was mentioning just fell at the feet of Rinzai, and he said, "If you can use such things, allow

me to use myself also. You ran like a thief and you are the master of the house. You confounded me. I have
been in many, many situations, but never like this. You have hypnotized me also. You are the first man who
has not behaved with me as a thief, who has not thought about me as a thief, so I cannot leave you now.
Everyone has tried with me that I should leave this profession, and I had my own reactions. But with you I
change. Now initiate me into your path."

Rinzai said, "How can I initiate you? Really, when I laughed, in that moment I became Enlightened.

When I laughed, I became Enlightened! I was trying and trying and trying; I had been meditating for years
and nothing happened. But in that moment of laughter, something broke down, something exploded; I
became disconnected from myself. So you are my teacher, really -- you have initiated me."

Use something absolutely absurd such as Zen monks have been using. If you go to a Zen teacher, you

can never conceive what his answer will be. If you go to a Hindu teacher, a Hindu guru, your question can
show you what the answer is going to be. The answer is predictable. And whenever the answer is
predictable, it is useless: it is useless because it is routine. So if you go to a teacher, you can know that if
you ask "this", he will answer "this". But you can never know with a Zen teacher. Everything is possible,
and nothing is impossible. He may answer, he may not answer. He may answer in such a way which is not
at all connected with your question -- not at all!

You may have asked, "Is there a God?" and a Zen teacher might answer, "Look! the sun has gone down.

The evening is to come"not related at all. Someone may ask, "What is a Buddha?" and a Zen teacher might
just beat you or throw you out of the window. Why? Really, they are not answering you. They are just
trying to create a gap between your questioning mind and the answer -- a gap!

If you ask, "Is there a God?" and I throw you out of the window, how can you relate these two? -- no

relation. If I answer, "There is no God," it is related. If I say, "There is a God," it is related. My theist
answer, my atheist answer -- all are related. They don't create the gap. But if I begin to beat you or I just
begin to dance, I just begin to laugh, just a mad laugh -- it is not related. And if you can be unrelated,
unhitched from your routine track, if you can be derailed from the track, something has happened. And it
has happened many times that the seeker is thrown out of the window, and he comes back to touch the feet
of the Master and say, "Much has happened, and I never dreamt about it. And my question was not even
related, but you have replied to me."

The first Zen teacher from India, Bodhidharma, went to China. He introduced Zen there. ZEN is really

the Chinese form of dhyan -- meditation. Dhyan is Sanskrit, and the equivalent of dhyan in Pali, the
Buddhist language, is zhan. So zhan in China became chan, then zen in Japan. When Bodhidharma reached
China, the Emperor Wu came to receive him. When he entered the boundary where he was to be received,
many thousands of monks were there. No one could conceive that Bodhidharma would enter in such a way:
one foot was naked; on one foot there was a shoe and another shoe was on his head. He entered with a shoe
on his head!

The Emperor Wu was just bewildered: "What type of man is this? Is he mad?" Wu became worried, and

Bodhidharma laughed. Bodhidharma said, "You must be thinking the man is mad. I can predict you, but you
cannot predict me: that is the difference. That is the difference! You must be thinking I am mad. You have
not said so, but I can predict. You cannot predict me: that is the difference."

Become unpredictable: this is the second thing. If you are predictable, you are a thing, not a person. The

more unpredictable, the more you are not a thing -- not just a thing among things. You become a person. So
the second thing against the current: be unpredictable. Sometimes be absurd. Just don't try to be logical
because the current is logical. Remember this: the current is very logical -- strictly logical. Everything is
related. You insult me: I am angry. You appreciate me: I am happy. You call me good and I am one way;
and you call me bad and I am different. Everything is predictable, it is logical.

Really, if you are angry and I don't reply to you with anger, you will feel something strange has

happened. You will not be at ease. You will not be at ease because something illogical has come in. We live
in a logical world. This current is very logical, mathematical; everything is fixed. Unfix it! Disturb it!
Create a chaos! Create an inner anarchy! Only then can you throw the animal heritage. Animals are
predictable and animals are very logical. To transcend them you must have the courage to be illogical, and
that is the deepest courage -- to be illogical.

Jesus says, "Those who have will be given more, and those who have not, even that will be taken away."

This is illogical. This is absolutely illogical! What does he mean? He is using some Zen words. If you look
in the words of Buddha, Krishna, Lao Tzu, you will find that they are not logical. If you ask a Buddha, "I
will be good, virtuous, I will follow -- what will I gain?" he will say, "Nothing! You will not gain anything
-- nothing!"

This Emperor Wu asked Bodhidharma, "I have donated millions for the purpose of Buddhism; I have

opened many monasteries; ten thousand monks are fed daily in my palace -- so what will be the result?
What will I gain?"

And Bodhidharma said, "Nothing! And if you insist more, you may even fall down into hell. If you

insist more, you may even fall down into the deepest hell!" -- looks illogical.

Even the ten thousand monks were just afraid: "What is he saying? He may destroy the whole business"

-- because they were trying to persuade the Emperor that he will get into a high heaven, that he will be just
by the side of the divine Emperor, the divine throne. He will be just by the side, and he will have a place
there. And ten-thousandfold of whatsoever he is giving here, he will get back. But this man is destroying
everything. He says, "Nothing!"

Bodhidharma is illogical; Wu is logical. Wu again asked, "Are you joking? -- because I have done so

much. Is it not holy?"

And Bodhidharma said, "There is nothing holy. The word 'holy' is just empty. And if you insist more,

you will fall down into a deep hell."

The Emperor Wu said, "We have no communication between us. What you are saying, I cannot

understand; and what I am saying, I think you are not hearing."

Bodhidharma said, "Yes! How can there be communication between me and you? Either you come up or

I must come down; only then can we meet somewhere. And I am not ready to come down -- you try to come
up." But it didn't happen, so Bodhidharma remained outside the Empire and the Emperor went back to his
palace.

After ten years, when he was dying, the Emperor remembered. When death came, every logical system

was shattered. Then he became afraid of whether anything was going to happen because "I have fed these
bhikkhus, and I have made so many temples and viharas and so many monasteries, but this death is there."
Then he remembered the monk, Bodhidharma, and he asked, "Bring him back. If he is found anywhere,
bring him back soon, because I am dying and death has shattered all my logic and rationality. Now only that
man can help."

But Bodhidharma was dead. He had died one year before, but he had left a message for the Emperor Wu

and said to his disciples, "One day when he faces death he will remember me -- because I was just a death to
him, to his whole expectation, to all his desires, to his whole fantasy about the other world. I was just a
death to him. And when death comes and when death shatters his hopes, he will remember me." So he had
left a message for Wu. That message was given. In the message it was written again, "You cannot predict
me, but I can predict you. When you die you will remember me. I can even predict what you will remember
when you die -- because death is illogical."

Really, if you can understand, life is illogical, death is illogical, love is illogical, God is illogical, and all

that is logical is just marketplace. In this life everything that is meaningful, significant, deep, ultimate, is
illogical. So create an illogical-ness inside. Don't be too logical -- then you can break. Logic is the
foundation of your old mind, your traditional mind. Illogic should be the beginning of the new mind.

And, thirdly, whenever you feel convenience, comfort, easiness, be alert: the mind is flowing

downward. So don't ask for inner comfort, otherwise you will be lost Don't ask for inner convenience,
otherwise you will be lost. Whenever you feel everything is okay, be alert, you are flowing downward --
because nothing is okay really. So whenever you feel that everything is okay, nothing is to be done and
everything is just flowing, everything is good, remember, you are flowing downward. Be aware of inner
conveniences. And when I say "comfort and convenience", I mean inner ones. Outwardly it makes no
difference -- you may be in comfort outwardly -- but inwardly never allow comfort to set in.

That's why no one remembers religion when he feels happy. When you feel sorrow, when you feel

sadness, when you feel misery, you begin to think about religion. Inconvenience inside must be used. So
two things: first remember always that the downward flow is very convenient. Don't be a victim to it.
Always create some inner inconvenience. This is TAP -- inner inconvenience. This is TAP -- this is
austerity. What do I mean by inner inconvenience?

You are sleeping, relaxed: create an inner inConvenience. Let the body relax, but don't relax the

alertness. Sufis have used vigil, night vigil, as an inner inconvenience. The whole night they will be on
vigil. In India, sleep was never used, really -- food and hunger were used as inner inconveniences. The
hunger is there: don't take food. The hunger is there: remember it, be aware of it, and yet be away from it.
An inner inconvenience is created. The mind has a habit to fall for the convenience, so create any inner
inconvenience. And always go on changing, because if you are fixed to one thing it will not be an
inconvenience for long.

You can even become fixed to your fasting, then it becomes a convenience rather than an

inconvenience, because to take food may begin to appear as an inconvenience. Once you know that the body
can run without food -- the body begins to feel more light, the body begins to feel more alive, the body
begins to feel more vital; and the body has a built-in process so that for at least three months you can be
without food, without any food -- after seven or eight days, to take food will be inconvenient. So use fasting
as an inconvenience, and when fasting begins to settle, use food.

Gurdjieff was strange in this. He would give you such strange foods -- such strange foods you have

never eaten! The whole stomach would be disturbed, and he would create inconvenience. Such strange
foods -- Chinese foods, Indian foods, Caucasian foods -- he would use in New York. With him, whenever he
was travelling, a whole truck of strange foods would follow. And his followers were very much afraid
because he would force them to eat so much that it became a torture. From eight in the night up to twelve --
four hours -- would be for eating, and he would be there. He would go on forcing -- no one could say no, He
would force so much alcohol that ordinarily it would just make you deadly unconscious, but he would go
on. He would create inner inconvenience and he would say, "Let the inconvenience be there. Remember! Be
awake!" He would go on pouring alcohol, and he would say, "Remember! Remember, and be awake!"

Tantrics have used alcohol, and a real tantric can take any amount of it without being affected at all.

They say, and they say rightly, that alcohol creates the deepest inconvenience inside. To fight with it and
remain aware is the most arduous thing. When the alcohol goes in, and every body cell becomes lethargic,
and the chemical begins to work, and the mind begins to lose consciousness, then to be aware is the most
arduous TAP -- austerity -- possible. But it is possible, and once it happens you will never be the same
again.

So create any inner inconvenience. The current always helps you to be convenient: that is a trick; then

you begin to flow with it. So the third thing for the upward flow of the mind is to create inward
inconvenience continuously, and go on changing. You can make anything a habit -- go on changing. When
something becomes convenient, leave it; create something new. Then, by these inconveniences, you create a
crystallization inside. You become integrated, one. And for this oneness, this integration, this chemical
crystallization, alchemists use the word "gold". Now the baser metal has been changed into higher. Now you
are gold. This integration is the third point to remember.

So continuously be aware that some integration must take place. No moment should be missed in which

you have not tried to integrate yourself. You are walking: a moment comes when your legs give way, and
they say, "Now you cannot move." That is the point to move. Now move! Now don't listen to the legs, and
you will become aware of a subtle force -- because the body has two force reservoirs. One is just ordinary,
for day-to-day use. Another, a deeper one, is infinite. It is not for everyday use: it only comes into operation
when some emergency is there.

You are walking: you have walked twenty miles, and now you know very well, your logic says, your

mind says, every fibre of the body says that now no movement is possible -- you will just drop dead. A
single step more, and you will drop dead! This is the moment: now move! Don't listen to the body! Now
run! Don't listen to the body, and suddenly there will be an upsurge of energy again. Within moments you
will feel a new energy, and now you can walk for miles together. This energy comes from the reservoir, and
this reservoir is connected only when the day-to-day energy source is just empty. If you listen to the body
then this reservoir is never used.

You are feeling sleepy, and now you cannot even open your eyes. This is the moment. Stand! Open your

eyes! Stare! Don't blink! Forget sleep and try to be awake -- and within seconds a sudden upsurge of energy
will overflow. There will be no sleep. You will be fresher than you have ever been in the morning. A new
morning, an inside morning has happened. A deeper source energy has come. This is how to integrate your
mind and how to let it be arrowed upwards continuously.

The rishi says, "The upward flow of the mind is the water for Divine worship." Mm? No other water

will do. This constant upward flow, by this and only by this can you worship the feet of the Divine.

The Ultimate Alchemy, Vol 1

Chapter #8

Chapter title: The Complementariness of Opposites

22 February 1972 pm in Bombay, India

Archive code: 7202225

ShortTitle: ULTAL108

Audio:

Yes

Video:

No

Length: 103 mins

OSHO, YOU SAID LAST NIGHT THAT TO HAVE AN UPWARD FLOW OF THE MIND ONE HAS TO MAKE
A CONSTANT EFFORT AGAINST PAST ANIMAL HABITS. PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS
BETWEEN EFFORT AGAINST HABITS, AND SUPPRESSION.

TRANSFORMATION of the mind is a positive effort. Suppression of the mind is negative. The

difference is that when you are suppressing your mind, you are positively concerned with being against
something. When you are transforming your mind, you are not directly concerned with being against
something. You are positively concerned for something: the effort is for something, not against something.

For example, if you are fighting directly with sex, then it will be suppression. But if your positive effort

is for transformation of sex energy, your positive effort is for something else, then it will not be suppression.
Suppression means you have blocked the natural door for the energy, you have blocked the natural outflow,
and you have not opened anything else. It is just a blockage. You are against anger, so you block anger --
but where will the energy go? The energy that you have suppressed will create inner complexities. It will
even be more perverted. So to be natural is better than to be perverted. Perversion is disease; to be natural is
healthy.

Of course, just to be healthy is not the end. One can go even beyond health. So these are three things --

suppression, being natural and transcendence. Just being natural is just being healthy. If you suppress and
there is no positive outlet, no creative outlet for your suppressed energy, then you will become perverted.
You are not healthy: you become diseased, you become a "dis-ease".

Don't be concerned negatively. Change the energy, the door, the path, the outlet, positively, and when

there is a creative change, the energy that was flowing into sex will not flow. Whenever you can open a
higher passage for it, it will flow through it. Whenever you can create something which is better than nature
itself, then there is no suppression. This difference must be understood.

Only man can fall below nature; no animal can fall below nature. There are no abnormal animals.

Sometimes animals also become abnormal, but only when they are with men -- never alone. A dog can go
abnormal, a horse can go abnormal, but never alone, never in their natural state. They can go abnormal with
man, with man's society. They can go abnormal in a zoo.

Man can fall down below nature. This may seem unfortunate. This is not because this capacity comes

with another capacity: man can transcend nature. No animal can transcend nature. The higher you can go
than nature, the lower you can go also, in the same proportion. Every possibility is a double possibility.
Every possibility opens two doors that are diametrically opposite. Unless you can fall below nature, you
cannot transcend above it. And if you have the capacity to transcend nature, you will have the capacity to
fall below it also.

Animals are just natural; they are neither perverted nor are they transformed. Never do they become

sub-animal and never do they become super-animal. They are just animal. Man is a flexible potentiality. He
can fall below nature, can be perverted, can become mad. He can transcend nature, can become
superhuman, can become a Buddha.

Another thing: animals are born with their nature. In a way they are born perfect. An animal is born

developed. Man is born without any nature and is not developed at the time of birth. He develops later. Then
many possibilities open, and there is a great range of possibilities. Marl is born undeveloped -- not only
mentally, but even bodily he is born undeveloped. No animal child is born with an undeveloped body; the
body is complete. That's why, when the animal child is born, he is capable of living even without parents.

Man's child is born undeveloped, and even in the physiological structure many things develop only after

he is born -- and it takes years. In the mother's womb he is not completely developed, and because of that,
the phenomenon of mother is born -- because mothering continues. If the child is born completely
developed, then there will be no mothering. The whole institution of the family developed -- and,
consequently, the whole society -- the whole society was born because the child is born undeveloped. He
has to be looked after, taken care of. Only after twenty years will he really be out of the womb. In these
twenty years, he will need a family, loving care, a society, in which to develop This will be a greater womb.

Even when he is physically complete, mentally he is not. He will have to develop his mind. And, really,

the average mind is never beyond fourteen years of age. The average mind remains below thirteen and a
half. The average mental age is thirteen and a half. A person who is physically seventy is mentally thirteen
and a half. The mind remains in such a primitive, primary state! Body becomes complete, mind remains
incomplete, and spirit is not even touched. Man dies without ever having evolved any spirit.

Whenever someone asked Gurdjieff, "Have we souls?" he would say, "No! Sometimes it happens that a

man has a soul. Sometimes only does it happen." Gurdjieff would say, "only sometimes, rarely does it
happen that a man has a soul. You are not even complete minds, so how can you have a soul?"

An incomplete body cannot have a mind, an incomplete mind cannot have a soul, and an incomplete

soul cannot realize the Divine. Really, body works as a womb for the mind, and mind works as a womb for
the spirit, then spirit works as a womb for God. So man is not born fixed, complete. He is born only as a
multi-potentiality, and he can fall down -- below nature. He can be more animalistic than any animal and he
can be a superhuman being also, he can be just Divine. This range of possibilities is there.

Now you can do two things. If your mind becomes negative, suppressive, you go on fighting things

which are not "good". So you fight sex, you fight anger, you fight greed, you fight jealousy, you fight
violence -- you go on fighting. But when a person is fighting violence he will never be non-violent, because
to fight violence one needs to be violent.

You cannot fight violence without being violent, so your so-called non violent saints are all violent --

deeply violent. Of course, their violence is not against others: their violence is against themselves. So no
one objects; you can even applaud them. They are against themselves -- very violent! You cannot fight
violence. How can you fight violence without being violent? How can you fight anger without being angry?
The very attitude to fight anger is a subtle anger. The very fight means you are angry. You are not at ease
with your anger.

You can take a negative attitude, and you can go on fighting with things which are there. The more you

fight them, the more you become like them. A person fighting sex will become sexual. His every gesture
will become sexual. His sitting, his standing, his walking, will become sexual. He will be so much obsessed
with fighting it that everything will take the tinge and colour of sex.

When you fight with something, you have to use the techniques of your enemy. If you want to win, you

have to use the same techniques that your enemy is using. So even if you win in the end, you will not win
because the techniques will be the same. Really, you will have been defeated. Fight with anger, and if you
are defeated then anger will be there. If you win, then also there will be anger. Only anger will have won
against anger.

This negative fight will narrow down your consciousness more and more, and you will become afraid of

everything. A negative mind is always in fear. Everything becomes a sin and everything creates guilt and
everything creates fear. You are just in a deep escape from everything. Your consciousness will be
narrowed down; it will not expand. You will become so much afraid that you will just hide within yourself,
and everywhere around will be all the enemies. You have created them because you became negative.

This is suppression, and you will end in a madhouse. Everything that you have suppressed you will have

to suppress continuously. The fight will be so continuous that you will not be able to do anything else. If
you are fighting sex, then it will be enough -- your whole life will be just a fight. If you are fighting greed,

then it will be enough; even greed itself will not take so much energy as the fight with greed. Sex will not
take so much energy, it will not dissipate so much energy, as fighting with sex -- because sex is just natural,
and the fight creates negativity: whenever you are negative, you only dissipate energy. Nothing is gained,
nothing creative is achieved. You become self-destructive.

So always remember never to be negative; then there will be no suppression. But I have told you that to

go against the current is the way for the mind to flow upward. What do I mean by going against the current?
The difference is very subtle, but once felt, you can never lose the track.

For example, you are swimming in a river against the current. Two are the possibilities: one, you are just

fighting the river, just fearful of being taken away by the river -- taken down, taken in the flow -- just afraid,
trembling, fighting against the river. Then you will be defeated because this very attitude of fear of being
taken away, of this trembling mind, cannot win. The defeat has set in How long will you be able to fight the
current? The whole attitude is negative, and the river is very much positive, lifelike. But you are just fear
and trembling. How can you win? Sooner or later you will dissipate energy in the fight, and the current will
take you away.

There is a second point, another dimension: you are not fighting the river because you are not fearful of

it. The first thing: fight is created because of fear. Remember, fight means fear. Fear comes first, then you
begin to fight Your fear creates fight, your fear creates the foe. So basically, fear is at the root. You are not
fighting the river because you are not fearful of the river. You are not fearful of the river because you know
that this is just natural that The river flows downward. Even if you flow downward, there is no guilt. It is
natural. Even if you flow downward, it is not a defeat. It is a defeat only if you fight -- then it becomes
defeat. It is just natural: the river flows downward and you flow with it. You can even enjoy it. You can feel
the bliss of the flowing river -- without any effort, just moving with the current, and the current takes you
away. You can even conserve energy by flowing down naturally.

So the first thing: don't be fearful of a downward flow don't be fearful! Remember, it is natural, and it is

better to flow with the current than to be defeated and taken away -- because then the whole thing will lose
the bliss that is possible naturally. So the first thing: to be natural is not a sin. Remember, because only then
can whole effort become positive; otherwise, it will be negative.

To be natural is not a sin. Of course, it is not enough -- mm? -- that is another thing. But it is not a sin. If

you are flowing naturally, that is okay. As far as it goes, it is okay. It is not a sin, it is not a guilt, it is not
immoral -- it is just healthy. But I say it is not enough. It is not enough because your possibilities are still
more. They are not just to be healthy. You can be holy also.

So don't be in fear -- first thing. Don't be in condemnation of nature, and then the negative attitude will

not be there.

Now: don't fight the current -- play with the current. You are not fighting the river really, you are just

training yourself to go upward. Feel the difference: you are not fighting the river -- you are just filled with
an abundance, you are just filled with energy and training the energy to go upward. Now the river is not an
enemy. Rather, it is a friend, because it gives you the opportunity to go up, to play with it. Now the fight is
not a fight at all. It is a game, it is a play. And the river is not your enemy, it is a situation. Life is a
situation, it is not an enemy. Nature is a situation, it is not an enemy -- it is an opportunity.

So try to train your inner energy to flow upward. You are not really concerned with the river going

downward. You are concerned with a different river of energy going upward. Your mind is basically
concerned with the inner energy which can go upward.

Feel thankful for the river -- because it gives you a background, it gives you an opportunity, it helps you,

it cooperates with you. You can weigh yourself only through its current. You can feel yourself only because
the river is going downward. The feeling that you can go upward even when the river is flowing down gives
you a very different quality of confidence -- you can go upward. And now, even if you relax and flow with
the river, you know very well that you can go upward. Now even this downward flow with the river is not a
defeat. You have known something -- something different from nature.

If you have glimpsed something different from nature even for a single moment, then you have known

your potentiality. You may achieve it, you may not achieve it, but now you are not just part of the
downward flow -- the upward flow is possible. Now it will depend on you. You will be the decisive factor,
not the downward current. Now there is no enmity! If the river flows downward, it is okay. You need not
flow, you need not fight, you need not be in fear. You can go up.

Ultimately, there is another possibility in which tantra has gone very deep. Tantra says there is a

possibility when you flow downward with the river and still you flow upward. Then only your body is

carried away. How can the river carry you away? It can carry only the body. Tantra tried to create many
downward rivers. So go into the river, feel the downward flow, flow with it, and remember constantly that
you are not flowing.

I was saying that by fighting with sex you may be obsessed with sex totally. There is another possibility:

even going deeply in sex, you may not be sexual at all. But that possibility opens only when your effort
becomes positive. This is what I mean by positive effort against the current. It is not really against the
current; it is for the consciousness. The current is being used just as an opportunity -- just to weigh yourself,
just to find yourself out -- just to feel the upward, the downward is needed. The more forceful the current,
the more forceful will be the feeling of the upward. So use nature as an opportunity, not as an enemy. Use
instincts as friends, not as enemies They are friends. Only through your ignorance can you make them
enemies. They are friends!

And when someone reaches the original source, the peak of the river from where the river comes down,

one is just thankful -- thankful towards the river, grateful towards the river, because it is only through the
river that he could achieve the source. So when someone reaches the peak of consciousness, one is thankful
to every instinct -- because they all helped, they all created the situation, they all created the opportunity.
And they were flowing in the opposite direction. So their opposite flow is not really against you; the river is
not against you. You can be against the river, and if you are against the river then you will never win. The
greater possibility is that you may become perverted.

So use nature to transcend it. When you see there is anger, don't fight anger directly. Weigh yourself,

feel the energy, transcend the anger. Anger is there: remain silent, feel anger and feel yourself and weigh
yourself -- begin to flow upward. Take it as a play. Don't be serious! Seriousness is a disease. If you take
everything negatively, then you will be serious. Then everything disturbs you: "Why is there anger? Why is
there greed? Why this? Why that?" Everything disturbs you and you become serious.

But our so-called saints are very serious. Really, I cannot conceive how a saint can be serious. He can

only be playful. The seriousness shows he has been fighting. A soldier, of course, is bound to be serious. A
saint need not be, must not be. Really, it disqualifies him from being a saint. A saint must be playful because
nothing is against him -- everything is for him. He can use everything for himself.

When I say "effort against the current", I mean play against the current -- play! Try! See what you can

do. The current is flowing downward. Can you flow upward? The anger is there. someone has insulted you,
the button has been pushed. Can you remain non-angry? Just play -- play with the situation; don't be serious.
The moment you become serious, you become angry, really. Anger is very serious. Be playful, laugh, and
see that the anger has been put on, that the conditioned mind has been put on. The anger is boiling there.
Now, swim against the current. Take it as a play, and see whether it is possible that someone has insulted
you. the anger has been created in the metabolism. Can you still swim beyond it? Don't fight it!

That's why I say the difference is very subtle. Standing on the bank you cannot feel the difference --

unless you have been in the river and experienced both. You are standing on the bank, and someone is
fighting the river and someone is just playing with the river, going upward. What difference can you see
from the bank? Only one: one will be serious and the other will be playful -- nothing else.

One who is in fear, afraid, fighting, will be serious -- dead serious. How can he laugh? How can he

play? If the current pushes him, he will feel defeated. The other one who is playing will not be serious at all.
He can laugh: he can laugh with the river, he can laugh with the waves. And if the current pushes him down
he will not feel defeated -- he will try again. He will not be serious. Rather, he will begin to love the river
because it pushes. He will begin to love the river! The difference will be inner, qualitative.

Suppression is a serious disease. Transforming oneself is a play -- it is not serious at all. It is sincere. but

never serious. It is authentic, but never serious. The quality of playfulness always remains there. It is the
very spirit. With positivity you are creating something inside. The outward is just an opportunity; the inside
creation is the thing. The emphasis is on something else. It is not on fighting the river: the emphasis is on
the upward flow.

For example, I am writing something on a blackboard. I use a blackboard but I write with white chalk,

because on a blackboard the white chalk becomes clear in contrast. I can write on a white wall also. The
writing will be there, but it will be as if it is not because the contrast will not be there. So the blackboard is
not against the white chalk. It is not the enemy: it is the friend. Only when they are against it do the white
lines become more white. On a white wall they will just lose themselves, they will be nowhere.

So who is the enemy -- the white wall or the blackboard? Who is the enemy? The white wall is the

enemy because you lose. The blackboard is not the enemy. Really, it is the friend. On it, the white becomes

more white and clear and apparent. But when I am writing on a blackboard my emphasis, my intention is
not to destroy the blackboard. Rather, my intention is to make the white lines clear. If you are trying to
destroy the blackboard, then the blackboard is the enemy. See the difference: if you are trying to destroy the
blackboard by whitewashing it, then you will feel the blackboard as the enemy.

You can whitewash it; then there will be a fight. But when you are writing something on it, your

emphasis is not on the blackboard. Really, you never remember it, you need not remember it. It is not even
in your awareness; it is only on the fringe. You write: the emphasis is on writing, not on destroying the
blackboard. You remember what you are writing, and the blackboard helps. It never obstructs you.

So your emphasis must be on what you are trying to achieve. not on what you are against. If you are

trying to achieve love, then be positively concerned with love, not with destroying hate. You can never
destroy it! You will not be able to destroy hate. But the moment love is there, the whole energy is
transformed. It begins to flow "lovewards".

Don't be negative about your energies, instincts, about anything. Be positive. And when you are

positively creating something, be playful. It is your nature. Why fight it? you have created it. It is your
effort. You wanted to create it, so you have created it. You have chosen it; it is your freedom. If you are
angry, it is your choice -- so why be against it? It is your choice! For lives and lives you have used anger, so
it is there. Why be angry against it? No one has chosen it except you. So whatsoever you are, you are your
own creation.

So it is nonsense to think in terms of negativity. Rather, feel that if you can create such a madman inside

of you, then, really, you are capable of many things. If you can create such a hell, why not a heaven? But
don't be concerned with the hell. Be concerned with heaven and begin to create it. When the heaven is
created you will not find the hell. It will have disappeared completely because it exists only as a negative, it
exists only as an absence.

Because there is no heaven, hell has to be. Because there is no love, hate has to be. Because there is no

light, darkness is there. Don't fight with darkness: create the light, be concerned with the creation of light.
When the light is there, where will the darkness be then? But you can fight directly. Don't think about the
light at all and begin to fight darkness directly. But no matter what you do, the darkness will never be
destroyed. On the contrary, you may be destroyed in the fight. How can you fight darkness directly? It is an
absence. Darkness only means that the light is not. So, please, create light.

The river is flowing downward, and you are flowing with it because you don't know the upward flow.

You have not known it: that is the only thing. Once you know it, all the rivers may flow downward, but you
cannot flow downward. Then go with the river to the very sea, and you will not go downward.

It is difficult to sense the difference. That's why so much suppression is in the world. No one has taught

it -- everyone has understood it. No one has taught it -- neither a Buddha nor a Mahavir nor a Jesus nor a
Krishna. This is a miracle. No one has taught suppression because no one can. It is absolute nonsense! But
everyone has suppressed and everyone is suppressing -- because the difference is so subtle that whenever
transformation starts, suppression is understood.

Whenever a teacher is born who begins to talk about transformation, followers gather who begin to

understand about suppression -- because it is so delicate, so delicate that unless you experience it there is
every possibility you will misunderstand it. So try to experience it. The primary requirement: Don't be
against anything -- be for! Be for something! Don't be against something!

Really, when you are against something your future is not open. Only when you are for something does

your future open. When you are against something you are clinging to the past. You can never be against
the future. How can you be against the future? You can only be against the past. So let it be understood in
this dimension also: when you are against, you are against the past. You are fighting with death. The past is
no more, so why fight it? Create the future; be for something. Then you become positive.

There are two types of freedom: one is from something and one is for something. A young man is

fighting with his parents to be free; he goes hippie. Then for some time the fight continues. The parents
cannot do anything, and they forget. Then for the first time the boy begins to feel, "What to do?" because he
was only against. The freedom was from the parents. It was not leading anywhere; it was not for something.
It was just against something.

This not only happens to individuals. It happens to races, to nations. It has happened always. You fight

for freedom against the British or against someone else. Ultimately you achieve the freedom, and then you
begin to feel vacant, empty. What to do? You were never fighting for something, so your force dies with
your enemy.

One young man came to me, very educated. He was madly in love with a girl, but his parents were not

for it. They didn't belong to the same religion. He was saying, "Whatsoever the future may be -- even if I
may be just begging on the street -- I am going to marry this girl. But my father is determined to disown me
if I marry this girl." His father is a rich man, so I asked the boy, "Are you really in love with the girl or just
angry with your father? Decide this -- because these are two different things. Are you really in love with
this girl or is this love just a by-product and you are really against your father and using this love as a
fighting point, as a front?"

He hesitated. He said, "Let me think about it. I have not thought it over. But why do you ask such a

question? Really, I am in love!"
I said, "You just go and think it over."

He came and said, "No, I am in love." I just looked into his eyes and he became uneasy. I remained

silent and continuously looked in his eyes, stared. He became uneasy and said, "What are you doing? Do
you think I am not in love?" I was still silent. He said, "What do you mean? Why are you so silent? Do you
think that I am falsifying, or that I am rationalizing?" I remained silent. He said, "It seems you have read my
mind. The more I think about it, the more I feel that I am against my father. But still I am going to marry."
So I said, "Okay, marry!"

After five years he committed suicide. He wrote a letter to me: "You were right. The moment I married,

the whole love died because with marriage the fight with my father ended. I was disowned and there was no
relationship. Everything ended, and in that very moment the romance was not there. It was really a fight
against something; it was not for something." And he said, "Now I am committing suicide because life is so
boring."

Life will be a boredom if you are always against and never for. Never be against: be always for. So

when I say "against the current". I mean for something, for the peak. Sex is not bad, but the peak is better.
So never think in terms of bad and good. Always think in terms of good and better. Mm? The bad must be
thrown out; it must not be given any status in the mind. Always think in terms of good and better and better.
Life is that.

Once you create good and bad, soon the good will drop and bad and worse and worse will follow. So

nothing is bad, but better things are possible. Always remember, and struggle for better things. Then you
have a positive flow.

HOW CAN ONE KNOW WHEN ONE HAS BECOME COMPLETELY FREE OF ANIMAL INSTINCTS,
ESPECIALLY FROM SENSUAL INSTINCTS?

One thing: when you really become free, when you really become free, you cannot even feel freedom. It

is always felt against slavery. So when you really become free, you neither feel freedom nor slavery. Then
you are free. If you feel freedom, it means still some slavery is there. Freedom is felt only against slavery.
When you enter the real freedom, you enter an existence which is lived moment-to-moment, neither as
unfree nor as free.

But the very formulation of the question carries our mind with it -- the very formulation: "When shall we

be free?" We are against something: "When shall we be free?" And especially from sensual things. But
why? The old mind, the old preachings, the morality, the religions -- they all teach that as long as there is
sensuality you will never be free. They say that as long as sensuality is there you can never be free --
sensuality must go; then you will be free. That's why we ask.

Really, as far as I am concerned, sensuality will not be there but you will be more sensuous when you

are really free. You will be more sensitive, and your every sense will become so cleansed that you cannot
even conceive what these senses can give. But there will be no sensuality. Sensuality is something else: it is
not sensuousness. Sensuality means a hankering; it means a constant obsession.

For example, one who is constantly thinking about food, he cannot meditate, he cannot pray, he cannot

study. Whatsoever he is doing, the food is an obsession inside. He will go on enjoying food in his
imagination. Even if he begins to think about heaven, he will think about food: "What type of food will be
available in heaven?"

So such persons have said that in heaven there is a KALP-VRIKSH -- a tree under which you sit and

think anything and it is supplied instantaneously, immediately. You think of food and the food is there. You

think of a woman and the woman is there. You think of wine and the wine is there. It is a wish-fulfilling
tree. Those who imagined this tree must have been very, very deep in sensuality. In the Koran it is said that
in heaven there are rivers of wine. So whosoever has thought this must have been deeply sensual -- a
hankering, such a hankering, that even in Heaven....

When Islam was developing in Arabian countries, homosexuality was just an accepted norm. So only in

the Mohammedan heaven is homosexuality allowed -- in no other heaven. It is said that not only beautiful
girls, but beautiful boys will be available. This is sensuality. You cannot even conceive of heaven without
your lusts.

I don't say that there will not be... I am not saying that Maybe! -- but why do you think about it? I am

not concerned at all with what is there or not, but why can your mind not conceive anything except that
which you are after? You have to make provisions and you have to make pre-arrangements, plannings. This
is sensuality.

And this is the paradox: the more sensual you are, the less you will be sensuous, sensitive, because

sensitivity is always in the present and sensuality is always in the future. So if a person is constantly
thinking of food, when the food is given to him he will not be able to feel the bliss. Really, on the contrary,
he will be taking food and thinking of other food. A person who is constantly thinking of sex will not be
able to go deep into sex. When he is going into sex he will be thinking of other women, or other men, and
then there is a vicious circle.

The less he enjoys, the more he goes after thinking, and everything becomes cerebral, mental. He eats

with mind, not with the body. His sex becomes cerebral, his everything becomes cerebral. In everything his
mind takes over, and mind cannot do anything except thinking. So mind goes on thinking and thinking.
And, really, such a guard is created around the mind that he becomes less and less sensitive. The senses lose
life, and the mind exploits everything from the senses. usurps everything. And the mind cannot do anything!
It can only think -- and thinking cannot give you contentment.

So the more you feel discontent, the more you think. Then you are in a vicious circle, and ultimately you

become absolutely incapable of feeling anything through the senses. This is sensuality: senses prostituted by
the mind; or mind having taken all the senses into itself. This is sensuality.

A really free consciousness will not be sensual but will be sensitive -- deeply sensitive and sensuous.

Really, when a Buddha sees a flower, he sees the flower in its totality, in its total beauty, in its total
aliveness. The colour, the fragrance, everything, Buddha sees in its totality. He will never think again about
this flower -- he will never be sensual. He will not hanker again to see it more and more, repeatedly. He will
never think again about this flower -- not because he is not sensuous, but because he is totally sensuous, and
he has lived this experience so deeply that there is no need to repeat.

The need to repeat comes because you cannot live any moment totally -- so you eat, and again you have

to think to repeat it; you love, and you have to think to repeat it. You are less concerned with living than
you are concerned with repetition. This repetitive hankering is sensuality.

A Buddha is not sensual in this sense -- he is deeply sensuous. His every sense-door is clear, transparent.

He feels everything, he lives every moment totally, he loves every moment totally. And he experiences it so
totally that there is no need to repeat, so he never thinks about it. He goes on and on, and every moment is
so rich that there is no need to repeat any old moment. There is no need! The need is created because you
are incapable of living in moments which are present. You are incapable, so you go on.

If I pass through this city and think, "No -- London is better; I must be there," it means only that I am

not capable of experiencing this city. That is why the memory comes. Otherwise, if I can live in this city,
there is no need. And remember that this type of mind, when it goes to London, will not be able to live there
either, because this type of mind cannot live in the moment that is there. This mind will think about Tokyo,
about Calcutta, about other places -- and we go on missing.

Live! So a totally free mind will not even be aware of freedom -- first thing. It will be so free that it

cannot be aware of freedom and it will not be aware of any bondage. It will be aware only of a life which is
moving -- moving moment-to-moment. And this movement is unmotivated -- mm? -- that is what is meant
by freedom. This movement is unmotivated! If you move with a motivation, then you are bound.

If I am saying something with some motivation, then I am not free. The motivation is my bondage. And

if I am just saying it with no motivation -- not even this much: that you may understand or may not
understand; not even this much: I must make you understand it -- then it has a freedom, unmotivated. Then
it is a bliss in itself to have talked, to have said, to have expressed. It is enough! If there is no motivation
beyond it, then it is a free movement. So in freedom you will not live through motivation: you will live

directly, immediately. That immediate living is freedom. But there is no awareness of it because you cannot
feel it. You can feel it only against some bondage.

Sensuality will not be there, but senses will be there -- and more acute, more alive. And this is as it

should be. A Jesus can love more. Really, only a Jesus can love -- unmotivated. His very being is love.
Senses are there -- really, for the first time, without the disturbance of the mind, they function totally. Eyes
see as they should see. They see without any thought, they see without any prejudice. They see that which
is! Nothing is projected. Ears hear that which is said with no distortion, because the mind is not there.
Hands touch that which is with no desire, with no lust, with no motivation, with no longing. Hands just
touch -- then touch becomes pure, total. With no disturbance, they simply touch, then touch goes deep. Then
even by a hand the soul is touched; the hand becomes a passage.

Senses are there -- more purified, more acute, more authentic -- but sensuality is not there, because such

a man lives so deeply that he never wants to repeat. And even if something is repeated, he never feels it is
repeated -- because everything is so new!

The less you live, the more you have to substitute for it by your dreaming mind. The less you live, the

more the mind has to substitute for it. The more you live, the less is the need of the mind to substitute. When
you live totally, mind is not needed. When you are in love, why should the mind be needed? When you are
eating, why should the mind be needed? When you are walking, why should the mind be needed?

You can move without the mind. You can eat without mind coming in, with no thought process. You

can touch someone, you can kiss someone, you can embrace someone, without the thought process coming
in. And then you live totally. And any moment that is lived totally, you will never long for it to be repeated,
because you long only for something which has remained incomplete. The mind goes on back again and
again to complete it. The mind is a very great perfectionist -- everything must be perfect! So if something is
left incomplete, the mind goes back again and again.

It is just like when one of your teeth falls out and then you continuously touch the spot with your tongue

to feel the absence -- the whole day long. You will be bored, but again, unaware, you will touch the
absence. You know now that the tooth is not there, but why does this tongue go now constantly to the spot
and it has never done so before? When the tooth was there, this tongue never touched it. Why, when the
tooth was there, was the tongue not concerned at all with touching it? When the tooth is not there, the
tongue goes on, goes on, goes on -- it becomes mad. Why? Because now the tongue feels something
incomplete, some gap, and the gap calls again and again.

So with any experience lived totally, you will never go again to feel it in the mind. If you have really

loved someone, there will be no memory -- memory in the sense that the mind is going constantly to it again
and again. If you have not loved, then the absence is felt. You feel guilty and you feel that something has
been missed, so it must be substituted -- then the mind goes on thinking.

The freer you are, the less is the need to substitute with mental activity. And sensuality is substituting.

You understand me? Sensuality is substituting something that you are missing. So when consciousness is
really transformed and becomes free, there is no feeling of freedom. When consciousness is transformed and
becomes holy, there is no feeling of holiness. So a real saint is one who doesn't know that he is a saint. Only
sinners know that they are saints. Only sinners know!

A really good man never knows that he is good; only bad ones know they are good. How can you feel

your health? Only an ill person, a diseased person, begins to think about health. When you are healthy, you
are just healthy. Really, you never remember that you are healthy. You begin to feel about the body only
when you are ill. So if someone goes on talking about health, be confident that he is ill.

It happens that in persons will go on creating many theories about health. Ill persons will constantly talk

about health and will become experts. They will become experts! It happens daily that if you are ill and
cannot get beyond your illness, sooner or later you are going to be a naturopath. If medicines are not going
to help, what to do? Constant thinking and reading about health will make you a naturopath. So naturopathy
is good in one way because every patient becomes a doctor. If you are really healthy, then there is no need!
And the same applies everywhere. When you are free, you don't feel it; when you are good, you don't feel it;
when you are moral you don't feel it.

And, secondly, when you are free you will live moment-to moment totally. In a general way this can be

said. We can never be particular because it will depend. It will depend! For example, Mohammed married,
and he married nine women. We cannot conceive the same about Mahavir; we cannot conceive the same
about Buddha. Buddha was married and he left his home, but Mohammed married nine women. So if you
ask a Jain, he cannot say that Mohammed is a Realized soul. How can he be? And the same is the case with

Mohammedans: they cannot conceive how these "escapists", Mahavir and Buddha, were Realized souls --
because whenever someone is Realized he is not afraid. He can marry nine women, and this Buddha leaves
even one, escapes. Why?

Jains cannot conceive that Krishna was an Enlightened One, because he was just so ordinary, doing such

ordinary things! Love is one of the most ordinary things, and he was loving and singing and dancing and
fighting and doing everything. So how can he be Enlightened? Jains think that Krishna died and went to the
last hell -- the seventh hell. According to them, ke is now in the seventh hell. He was the greatest sinner
possible, because he seduced Arjuna for the fight, for the war. They say Arjuna was just on the verge of
being a mahatma. He was just trying to escape when this fellow Krishna seduced him and forced him to
fight. So in Jains' eyes this man Krishna is the most violent person -- and he is suffering in hell.

This happens, this is natural. This is natural because we become obsessed with types. Then we cannot

allow another type to have Freedom, Enlightenment. This depends! The type, the individuality, goes to the
very end, to the very peak. It becomes purified, but it goes on. So a Buddha may feel that now he need not
be attached with any woman. It depends on him. It depends -- and he is free to move in his way. And a
Mohammed may think quite differently, and he is free to move in his own way. And everyone moves, when
free, in his own way. You cannot force a type.

For example, Mohammed was not at ease with music at all. He could not be; that was his type. But then

Mohammedans think that anyone who loves music is just a sinner, so in a Mohammedan mosque you cannot
play music. But Mohammed loved perfume very much, so Mohammedans continue to love perfumes. A
very poor Mohammedan, particularly on religious days, will also use perfume sometimes. Perfume is as
sensuous as music -- even more. So what is the difference? Perfume is music for the nose and nothing else,
and music is perfume for the ears and nothing else. But it depends on the type!

When Mohammed became free, totally free, Enlightened, his "type" began to move freely in his own

way, and a sudden burst and a sudden feeling for perfumes came -- unmotivated. But when followers come,
they create motivations. They begin to think that some reason must be there. Nothing is there as a reason. It
is simply the freedom of a type.

Meera goes on singing and Chaitanya goes on dancing from village to village. Mohammed cannot

conceive: "What nonsense are you doing? Dancing -- how is it related with Divine Realization?" And a
Chaitanya cannot conceive how you can remain without dancing when that Friend comes. How can you
remain without dancing? A Chaitanya cannot conceive how a Buddha likes sitting when the Divine has
come to the door: "How can you go on sitting like that when the Light has descended? You must go
dancing! You must become mad!" But these are types, and one must be aware to allow every type to be
there. Then the world is richer.

So I cannot say what will happen to you when you are free -- what senses will become more purified,

what senses will begin to be expressive of your soul. No one can say; it is unpredictable. One thing is
certain: sensuality will not be there. Senses will be there -- more perfect, more pure -- and purer will be their
experience and deeper. The sensitivity will be there, but no sensuality.

OSHO, SEEING THE DIALECTICAL FACTS OF LIFE, CAN ONE PRACTISE THE PATH OF RELAXATION
AND THE PATH OF EFFORT SIMULTANEOUSLY?

No, it is not possible! You cannot practise both simultaneously because both are diametrically opposite.

They lead to one point, but they don't pass through the same road, through the same route, through the same
realms. They are quite diametrically opposite.

You cannot practise both, just like you cannot go to one place simultaneously following two roads. Two

roads may be going. You are going to the station and two roads may be going to the station, but you cannot
follow both the roads simultaneously. And if you do follow them, you will not reach the station. Both roads
go, but then you will not reach because then you will have to go ten steps on one, then come back, follow
the other, then come back, follow the first one. Then you can follow much, but you will reach nowhere.

Every way is a particular way. It has its own route, its own steps, its own milestones, its own symbols,

its own philosophy, its own methodology, its own vehicles, its own mediums of movement. It has its own
everything: every way is a perfect way. So never be in two minds. It will simply create confusion. Follow
one! When you reach to the end, you will know that even if you had followed the other you would have

reached. When you have reached, you can try just as a play to go on the other -- that's another thing -- just to
know whether this road also comes or not. But don't follow two simultaneously, because every path is so
scientifically perfect that this will only create disturbance.

Really, in the old days, even to know about the other path was prohibited because even that knowing

creates disturbance. And our minds are so childish and so curious, and foolishly curious, that if we hear
about something else or read about something else we begin to amalgamate. And we don't know that
anything which is meaningful on a particular path may be just harmful on another. So you cannot
amalgamate. Some part in one car may be meaningful, useful -- so useful that the car cannot move without
it. But the same part can become a hindrance in another car. Don't use it, because every part is meaningful
only in its own pattern, in its own gestalt. The moment you change the whole, the part becomes a hindrance.

So much confusion has come into the religious world because now every religion is known to

everybody, every path is known, and you are just confused. Now, to find a Christian is difficult, to find a
Hindu is difficult, to find a Mohammedan is difficult, because everyone is just something of a Hindu,
something of a Mohammedan, something of a Christian -- and that creates very much danger. It is
dangerous. It may prove suicidal.

So purity of path is a basic necessity for one who has to follow. If one has just to think about it, then

there is no need for any purity. You can go on thinking. But if you are to travel, then purity of the path is
very essential. And you must be aware not to confuse anything and not to bring any alien, foreign element
in it.

It doesn't mean that the other is wrong. It only means that the other is right only on the other's path. You

need not take the other conclusion that "Only I am right and the other is wrong." The other is right in its
own way. And if you have to follow another path, just go to the other's way leaving your way completely.

That is why the old religions -- and there are only two basic religions: Hindu and Jewish -- were never

ready to convert anyone. And the only reason was this, that they knew a very old, very deep tradition -- that
to convert is to confuse. If someone has been brought up as a Christian and you convert him into a Hindu
you will just confuse him because now he cannot forget that which he has known. Now you cannot just
wash it out. It will remain there, and on that foundation, whatsoever you give him as Hinduism will not
mean the same because his old foundation will always be there. You will just confuse him, and that
confusion will not make him religious, cannot make him.

So the old religions -- really, there are just two old religions, the Jewish and the Hindu, and all other

religions are just branches of those -- have remained very dogmatically non-converting. The Hindu concept
was disturbed by Dayananda. Because his mind was working in a political way, not in a religious one, he
began to convert. But that concept has a beauty of its own. It doesn't mean that other religions are bad; it
doesn't mean that others are not right. It doesn't mean anything like that. It only means that if you have been
brought up in a particular concept, it is better to follow that -- follow that! It has gone deep in your bones
and blood, so it is better to follow that.

But now it has become impossible, and it will never be possible now again because the old patterns have

broken. Now, no one can be a Christian, no one can be a Hindu. That is not possible now, so a new
categorization is needed. Now I don't categorize as Hindu and Mohammedan and Christian. That
categorization is not possible now. It is just dead and must be thrown away. Now we must categorize every
path.

For example, there are two basic divisions: the path of relaxation and the path of effort, the path of

surrender and the path of will. This is a basic division. Then other divisions will follow, but these two are
basic and quite diametrically opposite. The path of relaxation means surrender just here and now with no
effort. If you can, you can. If you cannot, you cannot. If you can, you can. If you cannot, you CANNOT --
there is no go. The path of surrender is very simple: Surrender! If you ask how, then you are not for this
path, because the "how" belongs to the other path. Mm? "How" means by what effort, by what technique:
"How am I to surrender?" If you ask, "How I am to surrender?" then you are not for the path of surrender.
Then go to the other.

If you can just surrender without asking how, only then is it possible. So it seems simple, but it is very

difficult, very arduous, because the "how" comes instantaneously. If I say "Surrender!" you have not even
heard the word and the "how" comes up: "How?" -- then you are not for this path. Then the other path is of
will, effort, endeavour. Then every "how" is supplied -- how to do it. Then there are many ways.

So surrender has only one way, and there are no branches. There cannot be. There cannot be different

types of surrender. Surrender is simply surrender. There are no types. Types belong to techniques. There can

be different techniques; but because there is no technique surrender remains the purest path, without any
division.

Then the second: the path of will. It has many divisions. All the yogas, methods, belong to the second.

The second says, "You cannot relax just now, so we will prepare you: a preparation is needed. So follow
these methods, and a moment will come when you will drop."

They look difficult -- they are not! They look difficult because they say preparation, methods, years of

training and discipline are necessary. So they look difficult, but they are not -- because the more time is
given to you, the more simplified the process becomes. And surrender is the most difficult process because
no time is allowed. They say, "Just here and now." If you can, you can. If you cannot, you cannot.

Baso, a Zen monk, would say to whosoever would come, "Surrender!" If the person asks, "How?" he

would say, "Go elsewhere!" His whole life he used only two statements continuously -- never a third. He
would say, "Surrender!" If you would say, "How?" he would say, "Go somewhere else!"

Sometimes some persons came who would not ask, "How?" and would surrender. But rare becomes the

phenomenon! As our modern mind progresses, rare will be
in what the difference is betweenurrender, because surrender means an innocence, a trusting mind, an
absolute faith. It doesn't need effort; it needs faith. It doesn't ask for the method and the way and the bridge;
it takes the jump. It doesn't ask for the steps -- it doesn't ask anything.

But the other path is of effort, tension. And many methods are possible, because to do something there

are many techniques. There are many techniques for how to create the ultimate tension so that you explode.
But never follow both. You cannot follow! You can just go on thinking about both. And don't confuse.
Determine clearly, exactly, which is for you.

Can you trust? Are you ready without any "how" to take the jump? If not, then forget relaxation, then

forget surrender, then even forget the very word -- because you cannot understand it. Then effort -- and this
Upanishad is talking about effort: upward effort, a continuous arrowing of the mind towards the peak.

The Ultimate Alchemy, Vol 1

Chapter #9

Chapter title: What can Man Offer?

23 February 1972 pm in Bombay, India

Archive code: 7202235

ShortTitle: ULTAL109

Audio:

Yes

Video:

No

SADAAMANSKAM ARGHYAM
MIND CONSTANTLY ARROWED TOWARDS THAT IS ARGHYAM -- THE OFFERING.

WHAT CAN man offer? What can the offering be7 We can offer only that which belongs to us. That

which does not belong cannot become an offering, and man has always offered that which does not belong
to him at all. Man has sacrificed that which is not his at all.

Religion becomes a ritual if you offer something which is not yours. Religion becomes an authentic

experience if you offer something which really belongs to you. Rituals are really methods to escape from
authentic religiousness. You can find substitutes, but you are deceiving no one except yourself -- because
how can you offer something which is not yours? You can sacrifice a cow, you can sacrifice a horse, you
can offer properties of land, but nothing belongs to you. So, really, this is theft in the name of religion. How

can you offer to the Divine that which is not yours?

So the first thing is to find out what is yours, what belongs to you. Is there anything which belongs to

you? Are you the master of anything of which you can say, "This belongs to man and I offer it to the
Divine"? This is one of the most difficult questions: "What belongs to man?" Nothing seems to belong. And
when nothing seems to belong to you, then you can say only, "I can offer myself." But even that is not right
because do you yourself belong to you? Is your being yours? Are you responsible for your being? Are you
responsible to be?

Man comes from somewhere -- some unknown source. He is not responsible for his being here.

Kierkegaard has said, "When I look at man, I feel that he has been thrown here." He is not even responsible
for his own being; the being is grounded in the Divine. Look at it this way: can a tree say, "I offer myself to
the earth"? What does it mean? It is meaningless because the tree is rooted in the earth, the tree is just a part
of the earth. The tree is just earth and nothing else, so how can a tree say, "I offer myself to the earth"? It is
meaningless. The tree is already a part. It is not different, so offering is not possible. So, first, you can offer
something which belongs to you. Second, you can offer if there is a distance, a separateness.

The tree cannot offer itself because it is not different from the earth. Or, think of it this way: a river

cannot say, "I offer myself to the sea." The river is not rooted in the sea. It is separate. But, still, the river
cannot say, "I offer myself to the sea." Why? It cannot say this because it is not the river's choice. The river
has to flow to the sea. There is no choice left. The river is just helpless. Even if the river wants to choose not
to offer, she cannot choose it; so offering is inevitable. When the offering has no choice it is meaningless.

The river cannot say, "I offer myself to the sea," because she has to come. This coming is just part of

nature. The river is not coming to the sea by choice because there is no choice on the river's part. The river
is just helpless, she cannot do otherwise. So a third thing: you can offer something only when you can do
otherwise. If you are capable of not offering, only then do you become capable of offering. Then this is your
choice.

Man is rooted just like a tree. Man is a tree, only with moving roots -- rooted in Being, rooted in

Existence. And man is not separate: deep down there is no separation. And man is not responsible for his
own being: he has to return helplessly, just like a river falling into the sea. So where is the choice? How can
you offer? Your death will be a merging whether you choose it or not. Who are you? Where do you stand
and where can the offering become possible?
This sutra is very deep. This sutra says:

MIND CONSTANTLY ARROWED TOWARDS THAT IS THE OFFERING.

You cannot offer yourself, but you can offer your mind. That belongs to you and that is your choice. If

you do not offer it, the Divine cannot force it to be offered. You are not helpless. It is not like a river falling
into the sea. Mind has a choice. You can go on denying the Divine and the Divine cannot force you. Your
being is rooted in the Divine, but not your mind. You cannot deny the Divine as far as Existence is
concerned. You are part of it.

You can deny the Divine as far as consciousness is concerned. You can deny so much that you can live

in a consciousness in which there is nothing like the Divine. So to say, "God is" or "God is not," can be your
choice. Even if there is no God you can create one, you can believe. Even if there is God you can deny, and
nothing can be forced upon you. So the only choice is with the mind, the only freedom is with the mind.
Your being is rooted, but your mind is free.

Of course, your mind comes out of your being, but still it is free, free in the sense that a tree is rooted in

the earth -- the tree is rooted, the branch and the root, every flower is rooted -- but the fragrance of the
flower can be free and can move, unrooted. So you are just a tree, but your mind is fragrance. It may be
offered, it may not be offered -- it depends on you.

Man's freedom is man's mind. Animals are not free only because they do not have a choice: they are just

what they are meant to be. They have no choice! They cannot go against nature. Man's mind is man's
freedom. So one thing, the basic one to be understood, is that because the mind is a freedom it can become
an offering. You can offer your mind, but you can resist also, you can go against also, and even God cannot
force you -- that is the glory, that is the beauty of human existence. So man is the only animal who is in a
certain way free. This freedom you can use or you can abuse.

"Mind constantly arrowed towards That is the offering." If your mind can be arrowed constantly,

continuously towards That, you have offered yourself. But because mind has a freedom it is very difficult to
tether it somewhere. The very nature of it is freedom, so the moment you try to tether it, it rebels, it becomes
rebellious.

It may follow you if you are not trying, but if you try then it is bound to rebel because the very nature of

mind is freedom. And the moment you try to fix it somewhere, it rebels. This is natural. You can offer the
mind, but it is not easy. It is the most difficult thing to offer the mind. And when I say, "Mind means
freedom,'' it becomes more difficult. You are trying to put your mind against its nature.

Concentration is against mind because you are trying to narrow it down somewhere -- exclusively

somewhere. But the mind is freedom, movement, a constant movement. It lives only when it moves. It is
only when it is in movement. It is a dynamic force, so the moment you try to fix it you are trying something
impossible. So what to do? The religious man has always tried to fix the mind towards the Divine; and the
more he tries to fix it, the more the mind goes to the Devil.

Jesus comes to meet the Devil. The Devil is nowhere except in the effort of Jesus to be constantly

arrowed towards the Divine. The Devil doesn't exist. It is just that when you force your mind to be tethered
somewhere, it creates the opposite in order to move. So you must understand the law of reverse effect. With
the mind, that law is foundational. Whatsoever you try to do, the reverse will be the result. The reverse, the
very reverse, will be the result! So try to arrow your mind towards God, and you will come to face the
Devil. The reverse will be the effect. Try to steer your mind and your mind will become anarchic, you will
be encountering turmoil.

The more stillness is sought, the more unstill the mind becomes. The more you try to make it silent, the

more noise it creates. The more you try to make it good, the more sins become tempting. This is the
foundational law for the mind. It is as foundational with the mind as Newton's law is with physics: the law
of reverse effect.

So whatsoever you are trying to force you will never achieve. You will achieve the reverse, and then a

vicious circle is created. When you achieve the reverse, you begin to think that the reverse is so powerful
that "I am to fight more." The more you fight, the more powerful will be the reverse, the opposite. The
opposite is not. You create it only because you try to tether your mind. It is a by-product -- a by-product
which comes only because you do not know the law. So what to do to offer the mind to the Divine? If you
choose the Divine against something you will never be able to offer.

There is only one way: choose the Divine as the All; choose the Divine as the whole; choose the Divine

everywhere in everything. Even if the Devil comes to face you, realize the Divine in it. Then you have
offered -- and then the offering can be continuous, with no break, with no gap, because now no gap is
possible. That's why the Upanishads don't use the word "God'. They use "That', because the moment you say
"God" the Devil is created. They don't use any word really: they use just a finger. They say "That, and this
"That" is comprehending all -- everything everywhere. So if you can conceive of the Divine as the All, then
you can offer. Otherwise the contrary will be created: you will offer to God and the offering will go to the
Devil.

All the religions have faced the problem, the dichotomy -- Christianity or Judaism or Mohammedanism.

All the religions born out of India have accepted the dichotomy. They have accepted the God-and-the-Devil
dichotomy. So if you see the history of these religions, you will become aware of a very strange
phenomenon. Jesus stands for God, but the Devil goes on tempting him also. And whatsoever Jesus stands
for, his Church stands quite against it -- diametrically against. So Christianity is least concerned with Christ.
Rather, Christianity is his enemy, because whatsoever the Church has done, it cannot be said that it is God s
work. It can be said that it is the Devil's work. But this had to be due to the law of reverse effect.

Once you accept the dichotomy, the opposite will be the result. Christ preaches love and the Church

stands for hate. Christ says, "Don't resist even evil,' but the whole history of the Church is a long war. So
Nietzsche is right when he says, "The first and the la t Christian died on the cross" -- the last also! After
Jesus there has been no Christian. But, really, St. Paul and others are not so much responsible as they appear
to be. The real responsibility goes to the ignorance concerning the law of reverse effect.

If you choose a part as Divine and a part as non-Divine or anti-Divine, then the mind will move. And the

mind has its own tricks for moving. It can justify evil in the name of good; it can rationalize war for peace;
it can kill and murder because of love. So the mind is very cunning and clever in moving to the opposite.
And when it moves it gives you every reason to believe that "I am not moving." So if you choose God as
something apart from the world or anti the world, you will never be able to offer the mind. And a partial
offering is no offering: this must also be remembered.

A partial offering is mathematically wrong. It is just like a partial circle -- which is not a circle. A circle

is a circle only when it is full, complete. You cannot call a partial circle a circle. It is not! Either offering is
total or it is not. How Can you offer partially? That is intrinsically impossible. How can you love partially?
Either you love or not. No compromise is possible. No degrees of love are possible. Either it is there or it is
not there. All else is just deception.

Offering is a total phenomenon. You give up, you surrender, but you cannot say, "I surrender partly."

What do you mean? A partial surrender means that you are Still the master and can even take it back. The
part which has remained behind can take it back, can say no tomorrow. So a total surrender is that in which
nothing has been left behind, no withholding, so you cannot go back. There is no return possible because
then no one remains behind to go back. So offering is total.

But if you divide the world, if you divide the Existence into polar opposites, then you will be in a very

deep dichotomy and your mind will move to the opposite. And the more you resist, the more attractive it
becomes. Negatives are very attractive. When you insist so much on "don'ts", the attraction becomes
unbearable. "No" is a very enchanting invitation. So whenever you try to force your mind towards
something, the other -- which you are trying not to go towards -- will become inviting. And sooner or later
you will be bored with the part you have chosen, and the mind will move. It always goes on moving.

The Chinese philosophy says that the "yin" goes on moving into the "yang" and the "yang" goes on

moving into the "yin", and they make one circle. They are in a constant movement of one into the other. The
man goes on moving into the woman and the woman goes on moving into the man, and they make one
circle. And the light goes on moving into the darkness and the darkness goes on moving into the light: they
make one circle. And when you are bored with the light you are attracted by darkness, and when you are
bored by darkness you are attracted by light.

You go on moving between the opposites. So if your God is also a part of the opposite world, part of the

logic of opposites, you will move to the other extreme. That is why the Upanishad says "That". In this
"That", everything is implied, nothing is denied. The Upanishads have a very life-affirmative concept, a
very life-affirmative philosophy.

Really, this is very strange: Albert Schweitzer has said that Indian philosophy is life negating, but he has

really misunderstood the whole thing. In his mind, when he says "Hindu philosophy," he must have been
referring to Mahavir and Buddha. But they are not really the main current -- they are just rebellious
children. Hindu philosophy is not life negating. On the contrary, Albert Schweitzer is a Christian, deeply
Christian, and Christian philosophy is life negating! Hindu philosophy is one of the most affirmative.

So it is good to go deep in this life affirmation; only then will you be able to understand the meaning of

"That," because this is one of the most affirmative words -- not denying anything. "Life denying" means that
your God is something against life. Jains are life denying. They say that this world is sin. You must leave it,
deny it, renounce it! Unless you renounce it totally you cannot achieve the Divine. So the Divine becomes
something you can achieve only conditionally -- if you renounce the world.

It is a basic condition. For Buddhists also it is a basic condition: "You must renounce everything; you

must choose death! Death must be the goal, not life! You must struggle not to be born again! Life is not of
any value: it is of non-value. It exists only because of your sins. It is a punishment, and you must somehow
go out of it, not be born again." But this is not the Hindu concept. The Upanishads are not concerned with
this at all.

The same life denying attitude is of Christianity also: "Life is sin and man is born in sin." History begins

in sin. Adam has been expelled from heaven because he has sinned. He has disobeyed, and now we are born
out of the sin. That's why Christians have been insisting that Jesus was not born out of sex, that he was born
out of a virgin girl: because if you are born out of sex you are born out of sin, and at least Jesus must not be
born out of sin. So everyone is born in sin; mankind lives in sin. So a deep renunciation is needed to reach
the Divine.

Christianity is also death-oriented. That's why the cross became so meaningful. Otherwise, the cross

should not be so meaningful. It is a symbol of death. Hindus cannot conceive how the cross can become a
symbol, and even Jesus became so significant and important because he was crucified. If you don't crucify
Jesus and he is just ordinary, Christianity would not be born.

Really, those who were death-oriented became attracted towards Christ because he was crucified. The

death of Jesus became the most significant historic moment. So, really, Christianity was born because Jews
foolishly crucified Jesus. If he had not been crucified, there would be no Christianity. So Nietzsche is again
right. He says Christianity is not really Christianity but is "cross-ianity" -- crossoriented.

Schweitzer says that Hindus are life negating. He is wrong because he is thinking about Buddha. He was

as much Hindu as Jesus Christ was Jewish, but just this much. He was born a Hindu as Jesus Christ was
born a Jew. But Hindus really have their essence in the Upanishads which precede Buddha, and Buddha has
said nothing which is not in the Upanishads. They are of life affirmation, total life affirmation. And what do
I mean when I say total life affirmation? You cannot conceive of Jesus dancing, you cannot conceive of
Jesus singing, you cannot conceive of Buddha dancing or singing or loving, you cannot conceive of
Mahavir fighting. You cannot! Only Krishna can be conceived of as laughing, dancing, loving, even
standing in a war, with no denial -- with no denial!

The whole life is Divine. So to choose God is not to renounce the world. To choose God means to

choose God through the world. That is the meaning of That. And when you choose God through the world,
not against the world, then there is no opposite. Only then can you escape from the law of reverse effect.
When you choose That through this, there is no opposition, there is no polarity. And when there is no
polarity, mind has no layer in which to move. It is not that it is tethered, it is not that it is in bondage, it is
not that you have forced it here. Now there is no possibility for it to move. The opposite is not.

Understand it clearly: when the opposite is not, the mind is free to move, yet it moves not -- because

where can it move? If it can move, it will move, because movement is its nature. And if you create
dichotomy, then it will move to the opposite, it will rebel against you. If there is no duality, if the opposite is
not and if you have comprehended the opposite also in the Divine, then where can the mind move? Then
wheresoever it moves, it moves only to That. So if Krishna is dancing with a girl, he is dancing with the
Divine because the girl is not excluded, the Divine is not against the girl. If the Divine is against the girl,
then the girl will become the Devil. Then the girl will tempt, and there is bound to be difficulty.

Christ cannot laugh: he lives in a constant tension. Krishna can laugh because there is no tension at all.

When everything is Divine and when through all he has been giving the offering, then where is the tension?
Then there is no need. Then Krishna can be at ease anywhere. Even in hell he can be at ease because even
hell is That.

I was telling you that Jains have put Krishna into hell because he was responsible for the Mahabharat,

the great Indian war. They have put him into the seventh hell -- the deepest hell for the greatest sinners. But
when I close my eyes and begin to think of him in hell, I cannot conceive of him except as dancing. He must
be dancing there. Even if he is there he must be dancing, because even hell is That. And he will not be in
any hurry and he will not pray to be put out of hell. He will make no effort, because the That is present
everywhere. You need not go anywhere and you need not think of conditions, that only in certain conditions
He is possible.

He is possible in every condition. He is unconditionally present. When you can conceive of the Divine

as being unconditionally present, then it becomes the That of the Upanishads. Then even in poison It is; then
even in death It is; then even in suffering It is. And you cannot move anywhere. Or, wherever you move,
you move to That. So That must be conceived of through this; otherwise the law of reverse effect will begin
to work. And every religious person has to fall into this law of reverse effect.

Unless you understand totally, unless you begin to feel that this law is working everywhere, never create

any polar opposites in the mind -- otherwise you will be a victim of your own nonsense. the moment you
choose something as opposite to something, you have created the ditch where you will fall. You will be
hypnotized by the opposite.

We are all hypnotized by the opposite. A society becomes sexual if you say that sex is sin. Then sex

becomes romantic; it begins to have a mysterious aura around it. A very simple fact of life, only because it
is called sin, becomes the ditch -- only because it is called sin! Call anything sin, and you have created a
point by which you will be hypnotized. Auto-hypnosis is now possible. Deny something, and you are in the
trap.

Lao Tzu says, "An inch's distinction between earth and heaven, and everything is set apart. An inch's

distinction between good and bad, and everything is set apart."

No distinction should be made. That's why religion is not morality. Religion is beyond it because

morality cannot exist without distinctions, and religion cannot exist with distinctions. Morality cannot exist
without creating the other. It depends on polar divisions -- good and evil, and so on. So God and the Devil
are not part of religion but of morality. The concept of God as opposite to evil, the Devil, Satan, is not really
a religious concept. It is a moral concept.

When for the first time the Upanishads were translated into Western languages, the scholars were at a

loss because they were not anything like the Ten Commandments which say. "Do this, don't do that!" There

was nothing like the Ten Commandments, and without the Ten Commandments, how can a religion be?
How? The West couldn't conceive of it. So these books were "not really religious", because there was no
discussion about what is good and what is bad and what should be done and what should not be done.

They were right in a way. If we conceive of religion as a morality, then the Upanishads are not religious.

But if the Upanishads are not religious, then nothing is religious -- because morality is just a convenience,
and morality can differ from nation to nation, from race to race, from geography to geography, from history
to history. It will differ, because every race, every nation, creates its own conveniences Religion is not a
convenience, and it cannot differ from race to race. It is not dependent on geography and not dependent on
history. Really, it is not dependent on human thinking. It is dependent on the very nature of Reality. So
religion is, in a way, eternal.

Moralities are always temporal. They belong to some age and to some time and to some space -- then

they change. When time changes, they change. But religion is eternal because it is the very nature of
Reality. It is not dependent on your thinking. This religion belongs to non-polar Reality. But Reality is
divided into polarities. As we see it, it is divided, because the very seeing divides it, just like a ray of light, a
ray of sun, is divided through a prism.

When the mind looks at things, they are divided into polarities. The moment we look we have divided.

We cannot remain in undivided Reality for a single moment. I see you and I have divided: beautiful-ugly,
good-bad, white-black, mine-not mine. The moment I see you, division sets in. The mind works as a prism,
and the prism divides Reality. And if you go on choosing, then you will be a victim of your mind. The good
and bad are divided as such by the mind.

Don't choose the good against the bad; otherwise you will ultimately fall into the bad against the good.

Choose good through bad; know bad through good. They are one: feel this undivided oneness. See life
through death; see death through life: not as opposites, but as one -- as two ends of one thing. This is what is
meant by That. And the sutra says, "Mind constantly arrowed towards That is the offering."

Mind must be flowing towards That constantly, continuously, without any gap. How can the mind flow

if you make your God separate from the world? You will have to eat and then you will forget: you will
forget your God. You will have to sleep, and then you will forget: you will forget your God. You will have
to do many, many things, and God will be coming constantly as a conflict. So a religion which lives with a
God against the world creates much anguish, and so-called religious persons are not constantly arrowed
towards God, but are just constantly arrowed -- tense. They live in anguish. Everything becomes against
God, so anguish is bound to be there. How can they laugh? How can they sing? Everything comes m
between. Wherever they go to find God, something comes as a hindrance.

The whole world becomes inimical. Friends are not friends. They come m between, they become

enemies. Love becomes poison because it comes in between. Everything goes on coming in the way. You
are hindered from everywhere How can you live in peace? You cannot. Even a very ordinary man, a
worldly man, can live in more peace than you. If your God is something opposite to the world, you cannot
live in peace. You will be in a constant torture.

Of course, when the torture is self-imposed, the ego is fulfilled and strengthened so you can enjoy it.

And when someone begins to enjoy his own imposed tortures, he is mad, insane. Now he is not in his
senses. So you may become a martyr to your own nonsense, and you can even be worshipped by others
because there are persons who feel very happy when someone tortures himself. They enjoy it. They are
sadists and you begin to be a masochist. You torture yourself. You can torture yourself continuously, and
you will torture yourself when the whole world is against God. Then the life is bound to be a constant
torture. Everything is sin, and everything will create guilt and fear and anxiety, and you will be constantly in
a chaos.

You will torture yourself and become a masochist. And whenever there is a masochist, sadists will come

around and worship. There are people who feel good when someone is suffering. They would like to make
you suffer, but you have even saved them the trouble: you are torturing yourself. They feel very good. So
out of one hundred, ninety-nine so-called saints are just ill, existentially diseased: they are masochists. You
can worship them, but they will lead you into a hell. And this is not religion at all. Religion is basically to
create an ecstatic life, a life which is a benediction, which is absolute bliss. So how is this anxiety and bliss
related? They are poles apart.

The Upanishads say, "Offer your mind to That through this, through everything." Don't create any

hindrance, don't create the opposite. Whatsoever is, is That. And, really, a miracle happens. When I say see
good through the evil, evil disappears. When I say see That through this, this disappears. It becomes

transparent and only That remains. The world is not there, but we are not yet capable of knowing the That
which is there.

The world disappears. That's why Shankara could say it is an illusion. By illusion or by maya it is not

meant that the world is not. Only this much is meant: that the world is not a reality, but only a transparency.
If you can look deep, the Brahma is revealed and the world disappears.

If you cannot see That, then the world becomes very much real. This reality comes because you cannot

find the Real. The moment you find the Real, the world disappears. That doesn't mean there will not be
houses and there will not be nations and there will not be roads; this is not what is meant. When Shankara
says that the world is an illusion and it disappears when That is revealed, it is not meant that it will
disappear like a dream -- no! It will disappear in a very different sense.

It will disappear when the hidden is revealed, when the Total is revealed. The gestalt changes, the whole

gestalt changes. In a new pattern you begin to look differently. The same tree for a woodcutter is one thing,
and the pattern, the gestalt for a painter is something else. For a woodcutter it may not be green at all
because he is concerned with the wood, with the texture of the wood -- whether the wood can be used in
furniture or not. This mind has a gestalt; in that gestalt, in that pattern, the tree may not be green at all. He
may not have seen the greenness of it.

A painter is standing nearby. For him the tree is green, and I wonder whether you know or not that when

a painter looks at a tree it is not just green, because there are a thousand types of greens. When you look
ordinarily, every tree is green, but no two greens resemble each other. Two greens are two colours. Every
green has its own greenness. So for a painter, it is not simply green. It is green A, green B, green C -- many
shades, many individualities.

A lover who is sad, who has lost his beloved, may not look at the tree at all -- the green may look very

sad and will have a different colour and shades. He cannot feel the texture, or it may even be that he will
remember the body of his beloved, not the texture of the tree. And a child playing there and an old man
dying there -- are they looking at one reality? Their gestalts are different. A different tree evolves, a
different tree is there.

Is it not possible for a Shankara not to see the tree at all but only the That? Not the texture of the tree,

not the greenness of the tree, not the sadness of the lover, not the play of the child, not the sorrow of the
dying man -- nothing? Is it not possible for a Shankara not to see the tree at all, but only the That? Then the
tree becomes transparent. In a new gestalt the tree disappears and the Brahma is revealed. This is what is
meant when I say look, find out, penetrate everywhere for That. And when you begin to feel That
everywhere, your mind cannot move -- the opposite is not.

Then the offering -- only then! Then you have been, then you have given. You cannot give yourself.

You can give only your mind because you can take away your mind. You are in That, but your mind is not.
It can be! And you are free: the choice is yours. So you will be responsible -- no one else. The responsibility
is yours, so to be religious or not is your decision. Don't go into unnecessary things -- whether God is or not.
It is your decision! It is meaningless to go on discussing whether God is or is not: it is your choice. You can
say He is not, but by saying that you are denying a greater Reality and the opening towards it. You can say
he is, and, by saying that, you are open to a greater Reality.

This cannot be proven -- whether He is or not. This cannot be proven as a scientific fact, because if it is

proven then there will be no freedom. Then offering will be impossible. If it becomes a fact, as secular as
any, if it becomes a fact like the moon or the sun or the earth, if it becomes a common, objective fact, then
you will not be free to choose. So God can never become a scientific fact, and it cannot be proven whether
He is or not. Only this much can be said: if you choose Him you become different; if you don't choose Him
you will be different again. If you don't choose Him you will create a hell for yourself; if you choose Him,
then you can create an ecstatic existence.

He is irrelevant. It is your choice that counts. Whether God is or is not is meaningless. It is not even

worth discussing. The basic, relevant thing is that if you choose you become different, if you don't choose
you are again different. And it depends on you! It depends on you whether you want an existence which is
just a trembling and a fear, just an anguish and death, just a long suffering -- or a bliss, a
moment-to-moment opening into greater and greater bliss. So it is not a question of whether God is or not. It
is a question whether you want to be transformed and transported into another Existence or not. And it will
always be your choice.

If the whole world says God is and I deny, I can deny and it cannot be forced on me. That's why it is an

offering. It is an offering! You can offer; you can withhold. You are offered already, so that is not the

question. But your mind is not offered, and this is the riddle: that you live in That, but you suffer. You are in
That, but you suffer. Why? Because your mind is not in That. And, really, your mind suffers -- not you. You
have never suffered, you cannot suffer. You have never died, you cannot die. But your mind suffers, your
mind dies and is born, and it dies and suffers and goes on suffering. This mind is an "overgrowth". Offer it
to That and you will come to the point where you have always been. You will come to realize that which is
your nature.

Buddha was asked, "What have you achieved?" When he had achieved Nirvana, achieved

Enlightenment, he was asked, "What have you achieved?" Buddha said, "I have not achieved anything, only
that which was always with me. Rather, on the contrary, I have lost something. I have not achieved
anything. I have lost the mind that was with me, and I have achieved That which was always with me, but
because of that mind I could not penetrate to it, could not see it."

It is our choice. The screen on Reality is our choice. The covering on Reality is the mind. This life of

misery is our decision, and no one else is responsible. And you can continue for lives together. You have
continued, and you can continue still for lives together. And no one can break through and no one can pull
you out, because that is your freedom. Only you can jump out of it, and you can jump the moment you
decide. So don't think in the terms that "Because I have lived for so many lives in this ignorance, how can I
jump in a moment? When I have lived for so many, many lives in ignorance, how can I?" You can jump in a
moment because all these lives were your decision. Change the decision and the whole thing changes.

It is just like this: if in this room for years together there has been darkness, will you say: "How can we

light a candle this very moment? The darkness has been so long! For years it has been here, so how can a
candle burned at this moment dispel it? We will have to struggle for years and years, and the candle will
have to struggle for years and years. Only then can the darkness be dispelled, because the darkness has a
past, a history. It is long, deep-rooted."

But put on the flame and the darkness is not there. Darkness really has no time: it has only duration. But

by "duration" I mean that it is not piled one upon another, so it cannot become thick. So one moment's
darkness is as thick as one year's or one century's. It cannot be any more thick. It cannot be piled one upon
another; it is not being piled up every moment. It cannot become thick and dense so that candlelight cannot
penetrate it. It remains the same. It has only duration -- a simple duration without any thickness being
gathered.

Ignorance is just like darkness -- a duration. You can be in it for centuries, for millennia, and in a single

moment's decision it is not there. It is just like light. The moment light is present the darkness is not there.
And the darkness cannot say, "This is not as it should be. I have been here for many, many centuries and
this is not good. I have a hold on this place and I have the possession; I have been in possession."

Nothing can be said. When the light is there, darkness simply drops. Just like this comes the

Enlightenment, comes the offering. You can offer any moment -- you decide. But the offer must be total,
and it can be total only if you do not divide Reality. Affirm life as Divine; affirm both the polar opposites as
That. Then, if you move or don't move, you cannot go anywhere. Or, anywhere you go you will encounter
That. This is a continuously arrowed mind, and this the Upanishads say is the only offering. All else is just
false substitutes.

The Ultimate Alchemy, Vol 1

Chapter #10

Chapter title: The Secret of Totality

24 February 1972 pm in Bombay, India

Archive code: 7202245

ShortTitle: ULTAL110

Audio:

Yes

Video:

No

OSHO, IN REFERENCE TO THE SUBJECT OF OFFERING TO THE DIVINE, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT IS
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF WILL AND SURRENDER? WHAT ARE THE SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN WILL AND SURRENDER?

THE END is always the same, but the beginning differs, and all the differences belong always to the

beginning. The nearer you reach, the less is the difference between paths.

In the beginning will and surrender are diametrically opposed. Surrender means absolute will-lessness.

You have no will of your own, you feel helpless, you feel you cannot do anything. You are so totally
helpless that you cannot even say that will exists; the very concept of will is illusory. You have no will.
Rather, on the contrary, you have destiny, not will, so you can only surrender. It is not that you surrender:
rather, it is that you cannot do anything else.

So surrender is not an act. Rather, it is a recognition. It is not an act! How can surrender be an act? How

can you surrender? If you surrender, then how will you call it surrender when you remain the master? If you
surrender, then you remain the "willer", the surrender has been willed, and these two things are
diametrically opposed. You cannot will surrender. So surrender is not an act; rather, it is a recognition -- the
recognition of the phenomenon of will-lessness.

There is no will, so you cannot will. You cannot do anything. Everything is just happening. You have

happened, and all else that has followed has just been a happening. To feel this, to know this, is a
recognition. Suddenly you become aware of the fact that there is no will in you. With this recognition ego
disappears, because the ego can exist only if there is will.

So ego means the totality of willed acts. If there is will, then you can be. If there is no will, you

disappear. Then you are just a wave in a great infinite ocean -- and you cannot will anything. You are as a
happening; you will not be as a happening. What can a wave do in an infinite ocean? It has been "waved" by
the ocean. It is not: it only appears to be.

If you feel this and this feeling is a deep search, digging down deep in yourself -- is there any will? --

then you find you are just a dead leaf blown by the wind. So sometimes you go north and sometimes you go
south, and the dead leaf may begin to think that it is going south -- only the wind is blowing and the dead
leaf following. If you go deep down in yourself you will become aware of a total will-lessness. The
recognition of it is surrender. It is not an act. And if you surrender, if the surrender happens, there is no need
to offer. You cannot!

So on the path of surrender, really, offering is not possible, because offering is really based on will: you

offer, you are there. On the path of surrender offering happens, but the surrenderer never knows. He cannot
know; he cannot say, "I have offered my mind to the Divine." Really, he cannot speak in terms of acts; he
can only speak in terms of happenings. So at the most he can say. "The offering has happened."

Without a will you cannot have an ego and without an ego you cannot talk of anything as an act. So

"happening" is the phenomenon on the path of surrender. Surrender itself is a happening.

But on the path of will there is a different process. The moment I say "the path of will", the will is taken

for granted. You do something. This is a fact on the path of will, taken for granted. It is never questioned,
because those who follow the path of will say that even to question a thing is to accept will. Even to
question a thing means the will is there. To question is an act, to answer is an act, to doubt is an act, to say
no is an act. So the will cannot be questioned. On the path of will, the will cannot be questioned. That is a
basic hypothesis.

On the path of surrender, will-lessness is the basic hypothesis. You cannot question that. So this must be

understood: on every path something is a hypothesis. It is bound to be, because you have to begin
somewhere and you have to begin in ignorance. Because of these two factors a hypothesis is needed. So
even in science you begin with a hypothesis -- something assumed which cannot be questioned -- and if you
question it the whole edifice falls down.

For example, one of the most accurate, scientific dimensions is geometry, but you begin with a

hypothesis. You begin with something taken as an assumption which can neither be proved nor disproved,

because only that thing can be disproved which can be proved. So to begin with, you take something in
ignorance, in faith. So, really, science is not as scientific as it looks. If you go back to the beginning every
science begins with a hypothesis, and if you question the hypothesis no answer is possible. And this is as it
should be because you cannot begin from nowhere.

Look at it in this way: if I come to a strange city and I ask someone where the person A lives, he may

say, "A is a neighbour of B." But I say, "This is not an answer at all because I do not know B either. So
where does B live?" Then he says, "B is a neighbour of C." But I say, "I am in a strange land. I don't know
anything about C or D or E, so please tell me in such a way that I can understand. Everything is unknown to
me, so from where to begin?"

If he says, "D, E, F, G," they are all hypothetical. So from where to begin? A beginning can only be

possible if I assume one thing as known which is not really known; otherwise no answer is possible. And
this is the situation, this is how we are in this world: everything is unknown, so from where to begin? If you
say we must begin with knowledge, then how can you begin? When everything is unknown, how can you
begin with something as a known fact? Then you cannot begin. And if you begin with an unknown fact,
then too you cannot begin.

A hypothesis means an unknown fact taken in faith as known. A hypothesis means an unknown fact

knowingly taken as known. Then you can begin. So a hypothesis cannot be questioned -- nowhere, not even
in mathematics.

So on the path of will, will is the hypothesis, and on the path of surrender, will-lessness is the

hypothesis. So if one path appeals to you, you will not be able to comprehend the other, because both have
opposite hypotheses. If will-lessness appeals to you, then will does not have any appeal. Then it is absurd.
And if will appeals to you, then surrender is meaningless.

With will, it is taken for granted that you can do, so now the question is -- what to do? You can do

something which leads you away from the Divine and you can do something which leads you nearer to Him.
And you are responsible -- I have discussed that yesterday. How can you will, by and by, to be near and,
ultimately, totally with That? But remember this fact: that will is taken as a hypothesis. Once you take it as a
hypothesis, you go on willing, ultimately you will totally -- that is, your mind is arrowed totally towards
That -- in that total tension, on that climax and peak, will dissolves, because perfection is death. The
moment anything is perfect it dies.

That is why Lao Tzu says, "Never be perfect. Stop half way -- never go to the end!" If you go to the end,

success will become failure and life will become death. If you go to the very end, love will turn into hate,
friendship will be reduced to enmity -- because perfection means death. And when something dies, it dies
into the polar opposite.

When will is perfect, when mind is wholly arrowed, will dies, the will disappears -- because perfection

is the point of evaporation, just like water evaporates at a hundred degrees heat. The hundred-degree limit is
the perfection. As far as water is concerned, the heat has come to the peak. Now if heat continues to be,
water will not be there. And if water wants to be there, then heat must not come up to the peak. So when
you are a hundred percent will, you are on the verge of explosion, you will die, your will will die. The very
phenomenon of will disappears. And when will disappears, you come to the same point where one who
begins with will-lessness comes. Now it is will-lessness.

So either zero or perfection: both go to the same end. It will depend on you, on your type of mind. If you

can conceive of will-lessness, then there is no question. But that is difficult -- not only difficult: in a certain
way it is impossible. It is inconceivable. It happens, sometimes it happens. But that happening also has a
long, long effort of will. Many, many lives lived according to the will give you the experience that you have
been dreaming of. One who has willed for a long time and yet reaches nowhere may come to a point where
suddenly he becomes aware that he is working with something which is not.

A Buddha, for example: he reaches the Ultimate through will-lessness. But he worked very arduously on

the path of will for six years in this life. He went to every teacher, inquired about every path, endeavoured
his best, tried everything that was taught and said. He did everything that a human being can do, and with
every teacher he worked hard. No teacher was able to say, "You are not achieving because you are not
working," because he was working even more than the teacher. So every teacher had to say to him, "I
cannot say that you are not working -- you are working hard, impossibly hard -- but now this is all I can
teach you. You must go somewhere else."

So he went around to every teacher, worked on every method. And Bihar was a very potential place in

those times. Only twice have such great peaks happened. Once it was in Athens, in the Greek civilization.

Athens was a very potential city, and a very potential situation happened in Athens. And another time was
in Bihar: it happened that Bihar became the peak of all that mind can do. And in Bihar, in Buddha's time,
every method had been evolved and every method had its own teacher, its own Master And Buddha worked
with every one. He worked so hard and so sincerely that every teacher had to ask him to leave, because he
had worked totally and nothing was coming out.

Really, he was not the man meant for the path of will. Mahavir, a contemporary of Buddha, reached

through the path of will and achieved. But Buddha could not achieve. After working hard in every way, in a
sudden moment of helplessness he became frustrated. He felt helpless. He had done everything and nothing
was achieved, and he remained the same with no transformation. A total frustration set in, and one day he
left everything.

Previously, he had left the world: that was the first renunciation. But the second one, which is not

mentioned in the scriptures, was greater. The Buddhists don't talk about it. A second, greater renunciation
happened: after six years of tortuous effort, Buddha left the path of will. He said, "I feel helpless -- and it
seems that nothing is possible, nothing can be done, so I leave all efforts."

That was a full-moon night and he was sitting under a tree. The world he had left; now all religions, all

philosophies, all techniques, he left on that evening. He relaxed under the tree. For the first time he could
relax after lives and lives -- because somehow or other we are always working, doing, achieving. But on
that evening there was no achieving mind in him. He was so totally helpless that time ceased, future
dropped, desires became meaningless. Effort was not possible; will was not found at all.

So he was really dead -- psychologically dead. He was alive only in the sense that a tree is alive -- with

no desires, with no future, with no possibility. He was just like the tree he was Lying under. Conceive of it.
Try to conceive of it! If there are no desires and no future and no morning to follow, and nothing is to be
achieved and everything has been just absurd, and the thought that "I cannot do" penetrates deep, then what
is the difference between you and the tree? No difference! He was as relaxed as the tree. He was as relaxed
as the river flowing by.

He slept. This sleep was strange. There was not even a dream, because dreams belong to desires, effort,

will. He slept as trees sleep. The sleep was total. It was just like death -- no movement of the mind, no
motivation inside. Everything stopped. Time stopped.

In the morning at five o'clock he opened his eyes. Rather, it would be good to say that eyes opened,

because there was no motivation. As the eyes dropped in the evening, in the morning they opened.
Refreshed by the night, refreshed by relaxation, refreshed by a deep desirelessness, Buddha opened his eyes.
The last star was disappearing in the sky, and it is said that just by seeing the last star disappear Buddha
became Awakened. He Realized!

What happened? It was because there was no effort; effort had ceased. There was not even desire. Now

there was not even frustration -- because frustration is part of desire and expectation. If really expectations
cease, there is no frustration. He was not asking, he was not praying, he was not meditating, he was not
doing at all. He was just there -- empty. When the last star disappeared, something disappeared in him also.
He became just space, he became just nothingness. This is surrender, with no feeling of surrender -- because
who is to surrender to whom? But this also happened as a culminating peak of long efforts.

This is what I mean to say: one has to begin with will. Begin with will! If you are the type who can

reach to perfect will, you will just disappear from that peak. If you are not the type then you will reach a
perfection of frustration, and from that peace of frustration you will disappear. If the first is the case, will
will be known as the path; if the second is the case, then surrender.

But begin with will. You cannot begin with surrender, because surrender cannot have any beginning.

Action can have a beginning -- but how can a happening have a beginning? You can begin w!th action; you
cannot begin with happening -- that is the difference. You can begin with something to do, but how can you
begin with surrender?

So begin with will and put your whole being into it. Only then will you be able to know whether this

path can work for you or not. If it can work, then it is okay. Then you reach to the most perfect ego. And
when the ego is perfect the bubble bursts. Or, if you are not of that type, then you will go round and round
and round and round... and frustration and frustration. Then you reach another peak -- the peak of frustration
-- and surrender happens.

So even for surrender don't think that you have not to do any thing -- remember this! Don't think --

because mind is very cunning and the mind can say. "Surrender is our way. That means I am not going to do
anything. Surrender is my way!" This is a cunning deception. If surrender is your way, then surrender can

happen this very moment -- because surrender needs no time. There is no tomorrow necessary for it. If you
say, "Surrender is my way," then don't wait for tomorrow, because surrender can come just here and now.
No effort is needed in surrender so no time is necessary.

If it is not coming just this moment, then know very well surrender is not your way. Mind is deceiving;

mind is just trying to postpone effort. And mind can do everything. Mind can rationalize: "There is no need
to will because there is no will, so I am ready to be on the path of will lessness." But remember well that
your "readiness" will not do. Your readiness is not really a readiness: your preparedness is not really a
qualification for surrender. Your total helplessness is the qualification. Really, are you totally helpless?
Have you felt it, that nothing can be done, If you feel it, then surrender can happen this very moment.

Surrender cannot be postponed; will can be postponed. So with will you can take time, lives, and you

can go on working slowly. But with surrender there is no go, and you cannot think of the future -- future is
not allowed. So if you say, "Surrender is my way and someday it will happen," you are deceiving yourself.
If surrender is your way, then surrender would have happened already.

Someone asked Mozart, "Who is your teacher? From whom have you learned your music?"
Mozart said, "No one is my teacher. I have learned it myself, alone."
So the questioner said, "Then tell me, can I also learn it myself?"
Mozart said, "But I never asked this question to anybody. Even to know this you have come to ask me,

so it will be difficult for you to learn music by yourself. Even this you have to ask someone else -- whether
you can learn music without any teacher. A teacher is even needed to decide this! So you will not be able."

The man persisted. He said, "Why? When you are able, why am I not?"
Mozart said, "If you were capable of it you would have done it already."
So if surrender can happen and if you are really ready for it, it would have happened. You cannot choose

it. Choose will, because with choice will has an affinity. With surrender choice has no affinity. Choice
needs will. So choose will, work hard. And there are only two types. Either you succeed or you fail; but
work so hard that if you succeed you succeed totally, or if you fail you fail totally, and that totality will
decide.

Mild efforts and mediocre efforts lead nowhere, because you can never decide what your type is with

mediocre efforts. With mild, lukewarm efforts you can never decide what your type is. You can never know.
Work hard! Either succeed totally or fail totally. Both the ways you will reach the same point. If you
succeed totally, then will disappears. Being perfect, it dies. If you totally fail, then will-lessness becomes a
recognition and surrender follows.

All efforts are on paths of the will. When someone tries with his whole heart and fails, then the other

path opens. It is a sudden path! It is like an emergency door. In any air crash you have emergency doors.
You may not even be aware of them. You need not be. Ordinarily, you open, you enter and you come out of
the common, usual door. The emergency door opens only when there is an emergency and total failure.
Now the usual door will not do.

Surrender is an emergency door. You begin with the usual -- the will. When will fails totally, the

emergency door opens and you are out of it. And if you succeed, then there is no need for the emergency
door to be opened. You may not even become aware of it. You may reach your destination without the
awareness that there was a door, an emergency door, which could have opened any moment.

So you cannot begin with surrender -- no one can. Everyone has to begin with will. The only point to

remember is: be total in it so that you can decide either way.

OSHO, YOU HAVE OFTEN DESCRIBED MIND AS A COLLECTION OF PAST EXPERIENCES AND
MEMORIES WHICH ARE ALL DEAD. EVEN ITS APPARENT VITALITY IS NOT ITS OWN; IT IS SUPPLIED
FROM THE SOURCE OF THE BEING. LAST NIGHT YOU SAID THAT MIND WAS THE ONLY THING
WHICH ONE CAN OFFER TO GOD. BUT IS IT WORTH OFFERING?

Three points to be understood. First, mind has two meanings: one -- the content; another -- the container.

When I say "content", I mean thoughts, memories, the dead past, the accumulation of it. But that is only the
content. If the whole content is thrown out, then the container remains. That container you can offer. These
thoughts, memories, the past, are really worthless, not worth offering -- but the container is. Mind has two
meanings, so whenever mind is written with a capital M it means "the container". That container you can
offer, and that is the meaning of the sutra: "The mind constantly arrowed towards That" -- -the container.

"Constantly arrowed towards That" means now the container has no other contents than that -- no

thought, no memory, no past, no desires, no future, nothing. Now the mind as container has only one
content -- That. This is the offering.

These contents are really dead, because your mind absorbs them only when they are dead. For example,

your mind either moves in the past or in the future. When it moves in the past, it moves among the dead --
everything has died, nothing is alive. The past is nowhere except in your memory.

Where is the past? It is nowhere! You cannot find it anywhere. It is only in your memory. If I have some

memory that is private, secret to me, and if it is just my memory and no one knows about it, then if I die,
where will that memory be? It will not be anywhere. What will be the difference? Whether it ever was or
not -- what will be the difference? Whether it ever existed or not, there will be no difference.

The dead past is only in the memory. It is nowhere else. And because of this past, future becomes

projected. Future is there only because of past. I loved you yesterday, so I want to love you tomorrow. I
want to repeat the experience. I heard your song, so I want to hear it again, I want to repeat. The past wants
to repeat itself, the dead wants to be born again, so the future is created.

These are the contents of the mind -- past and future. If both these contents drop and your mind becomes

just vacant, thoughtless, contentless, then you are just here and now, in the present, with no past, with no
future. And here and now, That is present. In everything, simultaneously, That is present. When your mind
is not, I mean when your past and future are not, you become aware of That. And in that awareness the
experience of the That is the only content. This is what is meant by "Mind constantly arrowed is the
offering": nothing should be a content of the mind except the universal Existence.

When I say "offer the mind", I mean the container -- because you can offer the contents, but they are

meaningless, they are dead. When you offer the container -- the living mind, the living capacity to know, the
living capacity to be -- when you offer that, it is an offering. And it is not ordinary: it is rare because it is
arduous. And it is worth offering. And whenever there is a happening, whenever a Buddha or a Krishna or a
Christ offers himself, offers the mind to the Divine, it is not only that a Buddha or a Jesus is enriched: the
Divine is also enriched.

This will be very difficult to understand. When a Buddha is offered to the Divine, the Divine is enriched

also -- because even in Buddha the Divine flowers, even in Buddha the Divine reaches to a peak. So the
Divine is not something set apart. It is not something which is not in us. So offering is not something made
to someone else. It is to the common pool of consciousness, it is to the common Existence, the common
Being. So when a Buddha is offered, Buddha is enriched because Buddha becomes the Total. But the Total
is also enriched, because through Buddha a peak has been touched.

The Divine lives through you, so when you fall the Divine falls, when you rise the Divine rises, when

you laugh the Divine laughs, when you weep the Divine weeps -- because He is not something set apart. He
is not an observer sitting far off in heaven just looking. He is in you. So every act, every gesture is His. So
whatsoever is done, is done with Him, through Him, by Him, to Him.

Stories are there. They are beautiful, they are poetic, and they show much. It is said that when Buddha

achieved Enlightenment the whole universe became blissful: flowers were showered from the sky, deities
began to dance around Him, Indra himself -- the king of all the DEVAS -- came down with folded palms.
He surrendered at Buddha's feet. Trees began to flower out of season; birds began to sing out of season. The
whole Existence became a celebration.

This is poetic. It has never happened like that, but in a deep sense it has happened. And it is symbolic --

because it is how it should be. When somewhere someone achieves Buddhahood, how is it possible that the
whole Existence is not enriched? And it will feel the vibrations; the whole universe will become happy. So
through poetic symbols a fact has been shown.

But there are foolish, stupid minds who go on thinking that either this should be a historic fact;

otherwise it must be a lie -- they have only two alternatives. They say, "This must be a historic fact, so
where is the proof that flowers came upon the trees out of season? Where is the proof? Historic proof is
needed, and if it is not there, then it is a lie!" They don't know that there is a realm beyond fact and beyond
lies -- the realm of poetry that expresses many things which cannot be expressed otherwise. It is just an
indication that the whole world became a celebration. It must be so, it has to be so, it has been so!

So when this mind is offered, the contentless mind, simply the container -- purified, pure, empty -- when

this container is offered, it is worth offering. Even the Divine is enriched, because the Divine becomes more
divine. So another thing: God is not a static entity. He is a creative force, a dynamic force. So it is not only
that man is evolving: God is evolving also. For those of us who are confined to ordinary logic, God cannot

evolve, because to us, if he evolves, then He is not perfect. How can perfection evolve? Ordinary logic
cannot conceive that something can be more perfect than perfect. It cannot conceive -- it looks illogical!

But life is not confined to your logic, and there are possibilities that a perfection can be more perfect,

more enriched. A perfection can evolve. It is perfection at every moment; still, it is not static. For example,
a dancer: every gesture is perfect. Every moment, every gesture, is perfect. Still, there is a dynamic
movement, and the total is more perfect than the parts. Each dance is perfect; still, another dance can be
more perfect.

Mahavir has a very beautiful concept. He says that there are infinite perfections, multi-perfections, so

God is evolving. To me, God is an evolving force; otherwise there can be no evolution. If He is not
evolving, then there is no evolution, because through evolution He evolves. This is the concept of That: if
there is a flower, then He is flowering there; if there is a man, then He is "manning" there. So whatsoever
happens, it happens to Him; and nothing can happen without Him, outside of Him. So when Buddha
happens, the Total becomes more.

Buddha says, "Do not go to any deity to worship. Be Enlightened, and they will come to worship you."

And he shows and he says it not as a theory -- he knows it! Deities have come to worship him. This has been
an experience. So this is something to be pondered over. Only Buddhists and Jains have said this: that when
you are Enlightened, the deities will come and worship you -- because, they say, deities are not without
desires, and when yoU are Enlightened you are desireless.

Even an Indra is not without desires. Deities may be living m heaven, but they are with desires. So with

Buddha and Mahavir, human dignity was raised to its ultimate. If you can become desireless then
everything will worship you, because the desireless consciousness is one with That. That contentless mind
is not only worth offering: the Divine needs it, the Divine waits for it. When a child returns Enlightened, the
father is enriched, the home is enriched.

Really, when a child returns Enlightened, when the father sees his child Enlightened, the father cannot

be the same. So when a Buddha flowers, the whole universe flowers with him. He shows the potentiality,
the peak possibility. Now you may not attain it, but you may rest assured that you can attain it. The whole
universe becomes confident with a Buddha happening. The whole universe becomes a promise, a certainty.
The same can happen to each particle, to each "monad", to each mind -- and now it is up to you.

When Buddha is dying, Ananda says to Buddha, "When will you be back?"
Buddha says, "It is impossible. I will not be back again." Ananda begins to weep. Buddha asks him,

"Why are you weeping? You have been with me for forty years continuously. If you are yet not profited by
me, why do you ask for my next coming?"

Ananda says, "It is not for me that I am asking. Even if we have not attained to That, you have attained,

and we have become certain. And it is more than enough. We have become certain! Now this certainty
cannot be lost. I am asking for others who have not seen you. So when will you be coming back? Because if
they get a glimpse of such a certainty as you, only then can they proceed on the path.

"I am not asking for myself. For lives together I may wander, but this certainty cannot be lost. I have

seen you, and I have seen the peak possibility. So it is not for me but for others. When will you be coming
back? Because you are the only certainty -- we look at you and doubts drop. We look at you -- we may not
be capable of doing the same, so we follow you -- but in that moment of looking at you, we are you in a
sense. So when will you be coming back?"

So the offering is not only worthwhile; it is being awaited. The Divine waits, the Total waits, for you to

come enriched, to come back home with your potentiality actualized, for the seed to come not as a seed but
as a full manifestation. But with a "content-full" mind, offering is worthless -- you are offering rubbish.

SOMETHING MORE ABOUT THE FIRST QUESTION: IN REFERENCE TO THE EFFORTS REGARDING
MEDITATION, WHAT IS MEANT BY THE STATE OF TOTAL WILL? WHAT STATE OF MEDITATION WILL
BE CALLED THE TOTAL WILL STAGE OF THE FINAL SUCCESS?

The first meaning of "total" is that you are in it without any part outside -- with no withholding, with no

division. So any method of meditation will do. If you are totally in it, absorbed, not a part standing outside,
if you can just cry "Ram" totally with not a part as an observer in you, if you become the cry and not even a
part is observing that you are crying "Ram", if you become the cry -- then it is total, and then a single cry is

enough. There is no need to go on repeating "Ram-Ram-Ram" -- there is no need. One total cry in which
nothing is left is enough. So only you can decide whether you are total in something or not.

The second meaning of totality is that whatsoever you are doing, whatever technique of meditation, your

doing must be without any doubt. A very minute doubt will make it partial; a very small doubt will not
allow it to be total. But that also you can decide -- whether there is any doubt. We go on doing things with
doubts inside. Those doubts kill every effort. It is not so much that you are not reaching because of not
enough effort. It is more because of your doubts standing behind. So whatsoever you do. that sceptical part
of the mind goes on denying, goes on waiting to be sceptical. Even if you achieve something, the doubting
mind will create doubts. Totality means there is no doubt. Effort becomes total.

And, thirdly, we have many layers of energy, so you may be making a total effort on the first layer and

you may not be aware of the second layer at all. All the layers should become committed, involved, then it
becomes total. So when you are doing with one layer and you feel you are doing, totally, don't be deceived
so soon. Go on doing -- and when you feel that "Now nothing can be done; I have done everything and there
is no energy left," continue! This is the moment: continue! And soon you will become aware that a sudden
rush of energy is coming to you from the second layer. A new earth has been broken. Then go on doing this.
And when you are totally involved with all the layers, how will you know?

There are signs. One sign is that when all the layers have been broken and your total energy is involved,

total energy is involved, you will never feel exhausted. You will never feel that the point has come when "I
cannot do more." That feeling always comes when one layer is exhausted When the second layer is
exhausted, that feeling will come again. And there are seven layers. When the seventh is broken, that feeling
will never come again -- never! You will not feel that "Now I cannot do more." You will go on doing more
and more and more, and you will feel that still more is left. Then you are total in it.

The total is never exhausted, remember. Only the part is exhausted. The total is never exhausted! You

cannot empty it: the more you empty it, the more it is filled. So whatsoever happens with your totality
cannot be exhausted. If love happens with your totality, then love cannot be exhausted. If
meditation-happens with your totality, then meditation cannot be exhausted.

I am reminded of Bokuju, a Zen patriarch who Realized, who became Enlightened, when he was twenty

years of age. But he continued meditating. His teacher came and said, "Bokuju what are you doing? Now
there is no need. I see you have become Enlightened."

But Bokuju said, "But how can I end meditation? No end-is coming. I go on and on and on, and I am not

exhausted. So how can I end it? How can I come out of it? I see no end to it!"

The teacher said, "When one falls into the Infinite, there is only a beginning: there is no end. Come out

of it. Come out and move! Of course, I know now you cannot come out of it. Move! It will be with you.
Don't go on sitting!"

He was sitting for seven weeks continuously after his Enlightenment. He was just sitting. For his

teacher, for the monastery, there were seven weeks. He became Enlightened: there was light all around; he
was transformed. Everyone became aware that something had happened. His teacher came and went, came
and went every day. He waited for when he would open his eyes and he would talk about it, but he was not
opening his eyes. Then ultimately the teacher had to stop him and ask him to come out.

Bokuju said, "But how can I come out? It is not ending at all. There is no end to it. And they say, 'You

have been sitting here for seven weeks continuously. It is so long!' But I don't remember. I feel as if not a
single moment has passed. There has been no time for me."

So when the total energy is there working, there will be no end to it and time will drop. You cannot feel

time. You will feel time only with partial energy because it is exhausted. Time is felt only with something
limited; otherwise time cannot be felt. Time is really a feeling of limitations. So whatsoever has a limit, you
will feel time around it. It is relative.

So this strange phenomenon happens: if your whole day has been vacant without any events, just empty,

nothing of any note, nothing worthwhile, the whole day just passed by, then time will seem to be more when
it is passing. Unoccupied time will look very long. You will feel that the day is not going to end at all, that it
has become so lengthy. But that is only when it is passing. If you remember afterwards, then the day will
look very small -- because later on you cannot feel the time without events, so the day will look very small.

We feel time around certain things. So when you are on a holiday and many things are happening, on

that day the day will look small. Because it was so filled, it becomes comparatively small. But if you
remember your holiday when you are back home, it looks very long -- because each event spread in a
sequence becomes very long.

Bokuju said, "I don't know about time. What has happened lo time? It stopped." Mahavir says that the

basic element that changes totally when one enters Samadhi is time -- there is a stopping of time.

Someone asked Jesus, "What will happen in your Kingdom of God?" and he said, "There will be time no

longer." This is a basic indication that time will stop, because time can be felt only with partial energies.

That's why a child feels time less, because he is more full. An old man feels time more, because he is

now empty, emptying. So with an old man time becomes a problem. With a child time is not a problem at
all; he lives in a timelessness. And the same happens with civilization: whenever a civilization becomes
over-conscious of time, it means the civilization is going, by and by, towards death. Whenever a civilization
is absolutely unaware of time, it means it is in its childhood -- innocent. It is not old. Time consciousness
means death is coming near. So the more death you feel, the more time you will feel.

In India we have not felt time so much because we have a conception of a circle of continuous births. So

each time you die, it is not death -- again you are reborn. So, really, India destroyed the concept of death
totally. It is not a death at all if you are reborn again. That's why India never became time conscious. We are
so lethargic, and we can waste time so easily. The reason is that death is not there in the Indian mind; after
death there is birth. So time is infinite, and there is no hurry.

But the American mind, the Western mind, has become very time conscious, and the reason is

Christianity -- because once you say that there is only one life and that this death is going to be the final
one, that there is no rebirth, then death becomes very meaningful. And everything has to be taken in
reference. If death is so final and occurs only once, time becomes very valuable. It cannot be lost. And a
strange phenomenon happens: the more you become conscious of time, the less you can use it. You can only
hurry and run. The less you can use it, because you are in such a hurry. And to use time you need a very,
very patient attitude, a very slow-moving attitude; then only can you use it.

So when your mind is in a total effort of will, there will be no time and there will be no end to the

energy coming. But these are all inner subjective feelings. You can ask, "Can we be deceived?" Yes,
deception is possible. But whenever deception is there, you will become aware. The awareness will come in
this form: in any inner feeling, any inner realization, if you become doubtful whether it is true or imaginary,
then it is certainly imaginary -- because the Truth is so self-evident that you cannot doubt it. The doubting
mind just disappears.

So sometimes someone comes to me and says, "Tell me whether my kundalini has risen or not. My

teacher says my kundalini has risen, so tell me." So I tell them that unless it becomes self-evident tc you, do
not believe anyone. When that phenomenon happens, you will not go to ask anyone whether it has happened
or not. If someone comes and asks you, "Tell me whether I am alive or not," what will you say to him?
Certainly he is dead! Even if this has to be asked, then certainly he is dead.

Life is a self-evident fact; no proof is needed. How do you feel your life? Do you have any proof of it?

Is there any proof? How do you feel your life? How do you know you are alive? Is there ever a doubt
whether "I am alive or not"?

Descartes began in that way. He began to seek some indubitable fact which cannot be doubted, so he

went on: God can be doubted, heaven and hell can be doubted, everything can be doubted. Then ultimately
he stumbled upon himself. and he began to think. "Can I doubt myself? Can I doubt about myself? Can I say
I am or I am not?" Then he stumbled upon a self-evident truth, and he said, "Even if I say I am not, I am; so
I cannot doubt this fact." This fact begins to be his foundation. So he says, "COGITO ERGO SUM -- I
think, therefore I am. Even if I doubt, I think therefore I am. So I cannot deny it."

Life is a self-evident fact; you cannot doubt it. The same happens when more life happens to you. When

you enter more life, when you enter total life, it is self-evident, no proof is needed, no witness is needed,
Even if the whole world denies it, you can laugh. The whole world may think you are mad, but you can
laugh.

These are self-evident realizations. so I can describe them. But when they happen, you know; when they

are there, you know. And the knowing is evident in itself: it needs no outer proof, no outer witness. Your
knowing becomes the only evidence.

That's why sometimes mystics seem to be arrogant. They are not. They are the most humble people

possible. But they look arrogant, and the arrogance is felt by us because they are so self-evidently true. They
won't give you any proofs, they won't give you any arguments, they won't give you any reasons. They say,
"I know!"

This looks to us like arrogance, but the same is so if I ask you, "How do you know you are alive?" What

can you say? You can say only, "I know!" Is that arrogance? It is a simple fact. How can you express it

except by saying, "I know and I KNOW IT SELF-EVIDENTLY. Even for me there are no reasons why I
am. I simply am."

These Upanishads are such self-evident statements. They won't argue with you. They go on telling,

"This is this." You cannot ask why. You can only ask how. They can tell you how you can achieve this. You
cannot ask, "Why? Why is this this?"

So the moment you happen to be in totality, in that totality\ you will know it. And it is such a

phenomenon that you can doubt everything except it. You can doubt the whole world -- except it. If the
whole world stands against it as a witness, even then your feeling of its being true cannot be shaken.

That's how a Jesus can die, a Mansoor can be killed. They can be killed, but they cannot be changed,

converted. They cannot be converted! You can kill a Mansoor: you cannot convert him. He will go on
saying the same thing. Mansoor was saying, "I am the God." In Mohammedan eyes, that is KUFRA --
heresy, egoism. It is not a religious expression. A religious person must be humble, and this Mansoor goes
on telling, "I am the God -- ANAL HAK, AHAM BRAHMASMI -- I am the Brahma." So they killed him.
They thought that when they began to kill him he would come back to his senses. But he went on laughing,
and someone asked, "Mansoor, why are you laughing?" Mansoor said, "I am laughing because you cannot
kill a God. You cannot kill a God! AHAM BRAHMASMI! ANAL HAK! I am the God!"

Jesus says as his last words, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." He asked the

Divine to forgive all those who were crucifying him because, "They do not know what they are doing."

But Mansoor and Jesus, they are very arrogantly certain. That certainty comes from the self-evidentness

of Truth. And everything can be doubted, but never a feeling that comes in your totality.

If you are a total will, then you will come to know something self-evident. If you are total surrender,

then also you will come to know something self-evident. Even if you are a total doubter, then also you can
come to something which is self-evident. But totality is everywhere a basic condition. You must be total in
it, whole in it.

The Ultimate Alchemy, Vol 1

Chapter #11

Chapter title: Light, Life and Love

25 February 1972 pm in Bombay, India

Archive code: 7202255

ShortTitle: ULTAL111

Audio:

Yes

Video:

No

SADAADEEPTIH APAAR AMRIT VRITTIH SNAANAM
TO BE CENTERED CONSTANTLY IN THE INNER ILLUMINATION AND IN THE INFINITE INNER NECTAR
IS THE PREPARATORY BATH FOR THE WORSHIP.

LIGHT IS the most mysterious thing in the universe -- for many reasons. You may not have felt it like

that, but the first thing about light is that light is the purest energy. Physics says that everything material is
not really matter. Only energy is real. Matter is dead; matter exists no more. It never existed except in our
conceptions. Matter appears to be, but it is not. Only light is -- or energy, or electricity. The deeper we
penetrate into matter, the less material is found. At the very deepest there is no matter, and matter itself
becomes non-material. But light remains, or energy.

Light is the purest energy. Light is not matter, and wherever we feel matter it is only light condensed. So

matter means light condensed. This is the first mystery about light, because it is the substratum of all
Existence. So in a new way, the oldest concept of religions -- that in the beginning God said, "Let there be
light," and there was light -- becomes very significant, because Existence in its purity is light. So if
Existence begins, it has to begin with light.

Another thing: light can exist without life, but life cannot exist without light. So life also becomes

secondary. Matter simply disappears. It is not. It is only condensed light. Then light can exist without life.
Life is not a necessity for light to exist, but life cannot exist without light. So life becomes secondary and
light becomes primary. In this context, one thing more: just as light can exist without life but life cannot
exist without light, just the same, life can exist without love but love cannot exist without life. So these
three l's have to be remembered -- light, life, love.

Light is the substratum, the ground, and love is the peak. Life is only an opportunity for tight to reach

love. Life is just a passage. So if you are only alive, you are just in the passage. Unless you reach love, you
have not reached. Light is the potentiality, love is the actuality, and life is only a passage. So when it is said
that God is love, this is the love that is meant. Unless you become love, you are just in between, you have
not reached the end. Light is the beginning, love is the end, and life is just a passage.

So remember this: light can exist without life. Matter is just an appearance, a "condensity", an intensity

of light, and life is a manifestation. That which is hidden in light is manifested. Life is not an appearance:
life is a manifestation. Matter is just light condensed. So when light remains light and becomes condensed,
it is matter. When light evolves, manifests its potentiality, it becomes life. If it simply remains life, then
death is the end. If it evolves more, then it becomes love -- and love is deathless. You may call it God, you
may call it anything. These are basic points. If you remember them, then we can proceed into the sutra.

Thirdly, in this whole world everything is relative except light. Only light has a constant velocity. That's

why physics takes light as the measurement of time. Everything is relative; only light is, in a certain way,
absolute. Light travels with a constant velocity. Nothing else is constant. So only light is absolute. There is
no change: the velocity is absolute, the speed is absolute. So light becomes a mystery. It is not relative to
anything, and everything else is relative to light. So nothing can travel with more speed than light, because
if anything takes the speed just equivalent to light, it will turn into light.

If we can throw a stone with the speed of light, the stone will become light. Anything moving with the

speed of light will become light. So nothing reaches the velocity of light, and nothing transcends the
velocity of light. The speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. Anything travelling with that speed will
become light. That's why scientists say we cannot travel with the speed of light: because anything -- we or
aircraft, rockets -- anything travelling with that speed will become light itself.

Fourthly, light travels without any vehicle; everything else can travel only with a vehicle. Only light

travels without vehicles. That is mysterious. And also, light travels without any medium. Everything else
has to travel through a medium. A fish can travel in water, a man can travel in air, but light travels in
nothing, in nothingness.

In the beginning of this century, physicists just imagined something like ether. They imagined

something must be there; otherwise, how can light travel? So that was a basic question: light comes to the
earth from the sun or from some star, it travels, so there must be some medium through which it travels. So
just because nothing can travel without a medium, in the beginning of this century scientists hypothetically
assumed that there must be some X -- they named it ether -- through which light travels.

But now they have found that there is no medium. The whole universe is just a vast space, and light

travels in nothingness. That means even nothingness cannot destroy it, even emptiness cannot affect it. That
means even non-being cannot affect light's being. And it can travel without any medium, without any
vehicle. That means the energy is not derived from somewhere else. Light itself is the energy. If you have
some derived energy, then you will have to travel through mediums, through vehicles; you cannot go
yourself. Light goes by itself.

Fifthly, light is neither being pushed nor being pulled. It simply travels! If I throw a stone, then there is a

push. I put my energy in the stone, and the stone will only go to the limit, to the extent, up to where it can be
forced by my energy. When my energy fails or is exhausted, the stone will fall down. The stone is not
travelling with its own energy. The energy has been given to it, it is foreign.

Everything in the world has foreign energy in it -- except light. Everything moving is moving with some

energy derived from somewhere else. A tree is growing, but the energy has been derived. A flower is
flowering, but the energy has been derived. You are breathing and living, but the energy is derived. You
have no energy of your own. Nothing has except light.

In this reference, the saying of Mohammed in the Koran becomes very significant. He says, "God is

light," and he means there that only God is His own source of energy. Everything else is just derived.

So we really live a borrowed life. It is borrowed from many, many sources. That's why our lives are

conditional. If one source just refuse to give us energy, we are dead. Light lives with its own energy --
unborrowed, self-originating. It is neither pushed nor pulled, and it moves. That's the most mysterious thing
possible. It is a miracle!

Sixthly, if only light has its own energy and everything else lives with borrowed energy, certainly it

must be that everywhere, ultimately, the energy is borrowed from light -- because if everything lives with
borrowed energy except light, then ultimately light is the donor. Wherever you get your energy, ultimately
the source must be light.

You are eating food and you are getting energy, but the food itself gets it through light, through sunrays,

so you are not getting it from food. Food does not have its own energy source: food is deriving it from
somewhere else. The food is doing only an in-between work, the work of a medium. Because you cannot
absorb light directly, trees are absorbing it, and then they transform it in such a way, they compose it in such
a way, that you can take that energy directly. So they work as mediums -- then light becomes the only
source of energy.

So if everything drops in the universe, light will not be affected. If everything just goes off, if the whole

universe is dead, light will not be affected. The universe will still be filled with light. But if light goes off,
then everything will die. Nothing can exist.

This basicness of light is not only basic for science, it is basic for religion also. So now the second part:

if you penetrate matter you stumble upon light. If you penetrate life you again stumble upon light. So
religious mystics have always said, "We experience Light, we realize light -- the light within, the flame
within." All the mystics have talked this way, and it is not only symbolic. Only in this century has it become
possible to say that it is not only symbolic. If matter dissolves into light, comes out of light, why not life
itself? And when a mystic goes deep, he is going deep in life, he stumbles upon light. This going deep in
oneself means going more and more to the original source of light.

So the outer light is not the only light. You have inner light also, because you cannot exist without it. rt

is the base. To be means to be grounded in light; there is no other being. So when you go in you are bound
to come to and realize a dimension, a realm, of light -- inner light. This inner light and your life make just
two layers. Your life is the outermost layer; light is a deeper layer.

Your life will end in death. Unless you realize the inner light you cannot know the deathless, because

your life is just a phenomenon; it is not the base. It is just a phenomenon, a wave -- a wave on the ocean of
light. It will go! If you can penetrate through it to the deeper realm of light, you will know that which is
immortal, which cannot die -- because only light cannot die, only light is immortal. Everything will have to
die, because everything lives on derived life, borrowed life. Only light has its own life. Everything else has
life borrowed from somewhere else. So one has to return it, one has to give it back.

So unless you realize the inner light, you will not know that which is beyond death. In a sense it is

beyond death and beyond life also. Only then does it become immortal. That which is born will have to die;
that which is alive will be dead. So only that can be beyond death which is beyond life itself. Light is
beyond life and beyond death. Whenever mystics have been talking about light, they always talk about
deathlessness, because the moment you enter the inner light, the source of life, you enter deathlessness.

In this sutra, both terms have been used. This sutra says:

TO BE CENTERED CONSTANTLY IN THE INNER ILLUMINATION, in the inner light, AND IN

THE INFINITE INNER NECTAR, IS THE PREPARATORY BATH FOR THE WORSHIP.

So unless you are bathed in your own inner light, and in the nectar, in the immortality which belongs to

that light, you are not ready to enter the Divine temple. This is a preparatory bath. Water will not do: light
has to be used. Pure light has to be used. Unless you are bathed in pure light, you are not ready to enter the
Divine temple.

When Krishna showed his infiniteness to Arjuna, Arjuna said, "I don't see you, Krishna, I see only light.

Where have you gone? I see only thousands and thousands of suns -- and I am scared. You come back!"
When one enters into the inner light... it is there, because without it you cannot be. nothing can be. It is a
scientific fact, because without light nothing can be. If there is anything, then in its ground light is bound to
be. You may know it, you may not know it, but light is the ground of all. You are, so you have a deep realm

of light. The moment you enter it, you are bathed. and this bath means many things.

Ordinarily, when you enter a temple, outwardly you take a bath. You take a bath because dirt can be

washed from the body, and you can enter into the temple with a purer body -- fresh, undirty, clean. But
when you are really entering into the Divine temple. your body is not entering: your consciousness is
entering. And you cannot bathe your consciousness with water. But consciousness can have a deep
cleansing in inner light, and that deep cleansing means cleansing the dirt of all karma -- all actions.

Whatsoever you have done, whatsoever you have been, whatsoever your past has been. it dings to you --

just like dirt, just like dust, it clings to you. When you enter inner light, it disappears. Why? Because the
moment you enter that inner light, everything takes the velocity of light and nothing can remain. The dirt,
the dirt of karmas, dissolves -- all that you have done in all your lives. When you enter that realm,
everything becomes light, because with light, in that velocity, nothing can remain anything else. So it is not
simply a bath. All the karmas, just disappear, they become light, and the consciousness is cleaned. It
becomes fresh and young as it should be, as it is meant to be.

And when all the karmas disappear -- by "karmas" I mean the material dust that one accumulates

through actions and desires and passions -- when it disappears, the entity, the nucleus of ego disappears
also, because ego exists only as a collectivity of all the dust, of all the dirtiness, of all the impurities. It
exists as a center. When everything disappears, ego disappears. And when ego disappears, you are pure,
clean, you are born anew. So to enter this inner light is to enter the inner fire.

Another thing: the light that is outside is constant, but it cannot be constant for you. The sun will rise

and set. The sun itself never rises and never sets, but for the earth it rises and it sets; the night comes. So
with outer light you cannot remain constantly in light. Only with inner light is there no rising and no setting.
That's why the sutra says, "To be centered constantly..." continuously. There is no night, there is no setting,
because there is no rising. The light is there as your Being, as your very Existence. So to be constantly
centered in this light is the bath. And by "bath" is meant that everything to which one was clinging is just
destroyed -- not only destroyed, but transformed also. It becomes light itself.

This entry has three parts: first you will realize light, then you will realize a deep cleansing of your soul,

of your being, and, thirdly, you will realize the elixir, the nectar -- the AMRIT -- the immortality, the
deathlessness of it, because once the ego dies you are deathless, once the karmas are washed away you are
deathless, once you have entered deeper than life you are deathless.

Deeper than life, death cannot exist. Death exists parallel to life. It means the end of life. So life has two

dimensions. One is just horizontal. You go from one moment of life to another moment of life, then another
-- A-B-C -- in a sequence. Then ultimately, the Z is going to be the death. You move from A to B, from B to
C, then to X-Y-Z. A is birth, Z is death, and you move from A-B-C-D horizontally. This is one movement --
birth to death. Buddha says, "One who is born will have to die, because he is moving horizontally." So death
is a necessity on a horizontal plane.

But you can move vertically. From A, instead of going to B, drop below the A or go above the A. Don't

move to B. So from any life movement, you can move in two ways. You can move to another life
movement; then death will be the end. Then you are progressing towards death automatically, unknowingly.
You can move down or up -- not horizontally but vertically. So move down or up from A, and then you
move from life to light. If you move down, then you move to light. If you move up, then you move to love.
This is the vertical plane.

If you move down from life, then you move to light. If you move up, then you move to love. And both

give you the door to the deathless, because death only means horizontal moving. Now you are not moving
horizontally. And move either way. If you can consciously go down to light, your life will become love --
because once you have known the deathless you can be nothing but love.

Really, death is the enemy of love. You cannot love because there is death; you cannot love because you

are fearful of death; you cannot love because you are afraid of everyone else, of the other. And all fears are
basically fear of death. They all can be reduced to the fear of death. Once you know the deathless, the fear
has gone. And when the mind is fearless, it is love. When the mind is fearful, it is never love. You may put
on a show, you may pretend, but it is never love. With fear hate can exist, with fear jealousy can exist, with
fear anything can exist, but not love. That's why we pretend love, and love is not found. In the end jealousy
is found, hate is found, fear is found -- love is not found. Why? Because you cannot love really. How can
you love when there is death? How can you love unconditionally when every moment death is coming near?

Look at it in this way: you are here, your beloved or your lover is here. You are just in the ecstasy of

love, and then someone says that within five minutes you are going to die. The moment this is said, that

within five minutes you are going to die, love will disappear. You will forget the beloved, the lover and the
poetry, and everything will just disappear. Why does it disappear? It has never been there. It was only that
you were unaware of death, so you were pretending love.

Deathlessness known becomes love. Then you cannot do anything else. Then it is not that you love;

rather, you become love. Love becomes your quality -- not your act -- your very being. So either drop down
from A; from the horizontal line drop down vertically to light: that is one way. Yoga is concerned with this
dropping down. Or, from A, rise vertically to love. BHAKTI -- the path of devotion -- is concerned with
rising up. Either way you go vertically. The same will be the result.

If you can go up from A, again you find the deathless. Vertically, there is no death; only horizontally is

there death. So if you find love by going up, you will find light, because entering the deathless one is bound
to find light, entering the light one is bound to find the deathless. They are one! So, really, life and death are
two aspects of one coin, and death is not opposite to life. It is a part. Light is opposed to death, not life,
because light is immortality. Love is also opposed to death because again it is deathless.

So the problem is either to enter light by going down or by going up to enter love. This vertical journey

is the journey of religion. And this sutra says, "To be centered constantly in the inner illumination and in the
infinite inner nectar is the preparatory bath for the worship." So how to enter and how to be centered? How
to enter? How to find this light?

Two or three things: one, whenever you say light is, what do you mean? I say, "The room is lighted."

What do I mean? I mean that I can see. Light is never seen; only something lighted is seen. You see the
walls, not the light; you see me, not the light. Something lighted is seen, never the light itself, because light
is so subtle that it cannot be seen. It is not a gross phenomenon. So we only infer that light is. It is an
inference, not a knowing. It is just an inference! Because I can see you, I infer, assume, that light is How
can I see you without light?

No one has ever seen light -- no one! And no one can ever see light. But we use the words, "I see light,"

and by that we mean, "I see things which cannot be seen without light." When you say it is dark, there is no
light, what do you mean? You only mean, "Now I cannot see things." When you cannot see things. you infer
that light is not. When you can see things, you infer that light is. So light is an inference even in the outer,
the outside world. So when one has to enter, when one is ready to enter inside. what do we mean by light?

If you can feel yourself, if you can see yourself, that means the light is there. This is strange, but we

never think about it. The whole room is dark; you cannot say anything is there, but one thing you can say: "I
am." Why? You cannot see yourself either. The room is totally dark, nothing can be seen, but about one
thing you are certain and that is your own being. No need of any proof. no need of any light. You know that
you are, you feel that you are. A subtle, inner illumination must be there. We may not be aware of it, we
may be unconscious of it or very dimly conscious, but it is there.

So turn your gaze inwards. Close all your senses so that there is no feeling of the outside light. Go into

darkness, close your eyes, and now try to penetrate, to see inwards. First you may feel simple darkness; that
is because you are not accustomed to it. Go on penetrating. Just try to look into the darkness which is
within. Penetrate it, and by and by you will begin to feel many things inside. An inner illumination begins to
work. It may be dim in the beginning. You will begin to see your thoughts because thoughts are inside
things. They are things! You will begin to stumble upon the furniture of your mind.

Much furniture is there -- many memories, many desires, many unfulfilled passions, many frustrations,

many thoughts, many seed thoughts, many, many things are there. When you begin to feel them, first try to
penetrate the darkness. Then a dim light begins to be there, and you begin to be aware of many things. It is
like when you enter a dark room suddenly -- you can't see anything. But remain there. Be adjusted to the
darkness, let your eyes be adjusted to the darkness. Eyes have to adjust, they take time. When you come
from without, from a sunlit garden to your room, your eye will have to readjust themselves. Your eyes will
take a little time, but it happens.

If one is constantly using his eyes only to see things which are very near -- for example, if one is

constantly reading -- then he will become shortsighted, because so much use of short sight will fix the
mechanism of the eyes. So when he wants to see a far-off star, he cannot see it because the mechanism has
become fixed. Now it is not flexible. The same happens inside: because we have been looking outside
continuously, for lives, the mechanism has become fixed and we cannot look inside.

But try, make an effort -- look into the darkness. Don't be in a hurry, because the mechanism has been

fixed for many lives. Eyes have forgotten completely how to look inside. You have never used them for that
purpose. So look into the darkness, see the darkness, and don't be impatient. Penetrate the darkness, go on

penetrating, and within three months you will be able to see many things inside which you never thought
were there. And now, for the first time, you will become aware that thoughts are just things. And when you
become aware, then you can put a thought anywhere you want. If you want to throw it out, you can throw it
out.

But now you cannot throw it. Just now you cannot throw out any thought, because you cannot catch it.

You don't even know that it is a thing, that it can be caught and it can be thrown. You don't know where
thoughts are located; you don't know from where they come. Everyone says, "I don't want to be fearful; I
don't want to be angry." But they cannot do anything because they don't know even from where this anger
comes, what the root is, where this anger has its reservoir, where this anger is accumulated. You don't know
the roots.

Every thought is a thing. It has an accumulated reservoir. So when one thought comes, it is just a leaf on

a big tree. You cannot cut it and throw it -- another leaf will come out. Roots are there, the tree is there.
When you begin to be aware even dimly that thoughts are there, desires are there -- anger, passion, lust --
everything is there, don't begin to fight. Just watch, because by watching you will become more aware, and
by fighting you will never become aware. So don't fight -- watch! "Watch" is the word, the mantra. Watch
constantly, and the more you watch, the more you will begin to feel that more light is there. Light is there;
only your eyes have to be adjusted. So watch! By watching, eyes will become adjusted. And when more
light is there and everything becomes clear, when there is no dark spot, then you become master of your
mind. You can put anything out; you can rearrange everything. And once you become master of your mind,
then you will become aware from where this light is coming, what the source is. The sun is not there; it is
without. You have not even brought in a candle, but everything has become illuminated. From where is this
light coming? First you will become aware of things which are lighted, then you will become master of the
things of your mind, and then you will begin to be aware of where this light is coming from, of what the
source is. You will begin to be aware of a flower blooming. Then you will begin to be aware of where this
light is coming from. Then you can know the sun.

Only secondarily will you have to proceed from a lighted object towards the source of the light. Again

light is not seen; again you will see the sun. So first you will begin to feel the content of the mind. Then,
more and more, the mind will become clear. Then you will be aware of where this light is coming from. Just
in the center of the mind is the source. Then enter the source! Now you can forget the mind -- you are the
master. You can just say to the mind, "Stop!" and the mind will stop.

Awareness is needed for the mastery. Never try the reverse: never try to be the master first and then to

be aware. That never happens, that cannot happen. That is not possible. Be aware, and the mastery happens.
You become the master. Then go to the source, then enter the source, from where this light is coming. Go!
Enter the illumination! That entering into the illumination is the "bath". You have become master of the
mind. Now you will become master of life itself; now you will become master of consciousness itself. And
once bathed in this illumination, in this source of light, you will be able to see yourself in your eternity. In
this moment, all the past and all the future will be there. This moment is eternal. You are so pure that the
whole time gathers in you. The past purified creates a purified future -- and this moment becomes eternal.

Watch, be aware, observe deeply the contents of the mind. Then you will become aware of the source;

then enter the source. It is fearful, because whatsoever you have known as yourself will die. This bath is a
death -- a death of all that you have known yourself to be. The identity, the ego, the persONALIty,
everything will die. because the personality, the identity, the ego, they are the dirt -- the accumulated dirt
around your being. Only being will remain without name and form. And this sutra says this is the
preparatory bath. Only now can you enter, and only up to here do you have to make efforts. The moment
you are purified, the moment you have gone through this bath, the moment the karmas have dissolved. now
you need not make any effort.

From this point, God becomes a gravitation. Now you enter the field of grace. It is the same like the

gravitation on the earth, but you have to enter the field. So for spaceships we have tb make one basic
arrangement: they must be thrown out of the grip of the earth, out of the gravitation field. Two hundred
miles above the earth, all around, is the field. If you are under the field you will be pulled back. If you go
beyond two hundred miles, then the earth cannot do anything.

The Divine cannot pull you unless you are totally pure, unless you yourself become light. Then with the

same velocity, you enter the Divine. So this entering the light is the last effort. Once you are purified you
begin to gravitate. Now you need not go: you are being pulled. This gravitation is known as grace: the
gravitation to the Divine is grace. Grace is not really a help -- it is not! It is just a law. God is not grace-ful

only to some, it is not so, He is not partial; the earth is not gravitational only for some -- the moment you
enter the field, the law begins to work.

So don't say that God is grace-ful, don't say that God is helpful, don't say that He has compassion. It is

not right. God means "the Law of Grace". The law begins to work. Once you enter the field, the law begins
to work. Once you begin to be light yourself, the law begins to work -- and you begin to gravitate.

I said that light is the foundation of life. With this statement even science can agree. Science ends on

this point; there is no beyond for science. Religion still has a beyond because religion says that even beyond
light there is Existence.

Now another thing: light exists, so light has two qualities -- being the light and also existence. Still, light

is not the ultimate one because it has two qualities -- light and existence. Religion says that existence can be
without light, but light cannot be without existence. So one step more: religion says, "God is pure
Existence." So, really, for religious people, this word or this sentence that "God is", is fallacious, because
"God" and "is" both mean the same thing. A table is, but to say "God is" is not good. Man is because man
may not be, so man and is-ness are two things conjoined. They can be disjoined. But "God is" is not right
because God means is-ness. So it is tautological, repetitive. To say "God is" is as absurd as someone saying
"Is is" or "God God". "God is" means the same as "God God" or "Is is". They are meaningless, absurd!
Is-ness is God. So religion reduces it still more and says that when you enter light, then you will enter the
Is-ness, Existence, That. So light is just the aura of That. When you enter light, you enter the aura. But the
moment you enter the aura you will be pulled. and there will be no time gap. There is no time gap!

Now another thing: I said that light moves with the highest velocity -- 186,000 miles in one second. in

one second. in one minute, in one hour, in one year, how much light moves! The unit with which physics
measures its movement is the light year. A light year means the movement of light in one year at this
velocity. This is still a time movement. It is very fast, but yet light takes time to move. So as I said, light
needs no medium, light needs no vehicle, light needs no borrowed energy -- but still light needs time. So for
religion, light still needs something without which it cannot move. So light is still dependent on time.

Religion says we have to go even deeper in order to find something which need not have even this

dependence -- time. So for us it looks meaningless. How can light move without any medium? But now
science says it moves. It is so. Religion says, "Don't be disturbed. How can God be without time?" He is,
and God moves without time, consciousness moves without time.

Light has the highest velocity as far as science has measured, but in a way it is the highest because

Existence cannot be said to have more velocity. Really, it moves without time. So there is no question of
velocity. We cannot say how much it moves in one second. The movement is absolutely absolute. There is
no time gap. So when one enters this illumination, one is pulled. Even the word "pulled" takes time to be
asserted, but the very phenomenon of being pulled takes no time.

When I say "pulled", it takes time, time is lost. But, really, when one enters the illumination, even this

much time is not needed. There is no time gap. You are pulled, and beyond this light is God, the temple.
This light only bathes you, purifies you, just like a fire. You become purified. And the moment you are
purified -- the entrance, the explosion.

With light you become deathless, but you still feel. You feel that now you have entered immortality. But

when entering into That, the Is-ness, you are not even aware of deathlessness. Life and death are
meaningless now -- only Being is. You are, without any conditions. That Being is the Ultimate for religion.

Light is the field, mind is around the field, and we are around the mind, we live outside the mind. So one

has to enter the mind, then light, and then the Divine. But we just go on round and round, outside the mind.
This state of always being outside the home has become a fixed habit. We have forgotten that we are living
on the verandah. It is easy: the verandah is easy for moving outside. That's why we have become fixed there
-- it is easy. We can move outside anytime. and because our mind and our desires are moving outside, we
live on the verandah. So at any moment, at any opportunity to move, we can run. We have forgotten that
there is a home, and this running outside is just being a beggar. Entering the house means you will have to
turn your eyes around completely, and you will have to use your eyes in a new way, and you will have to
pass a dark night -- only because of a fixed habit.

Christian mystics have talked much about "the dark night of the soul". This is the dark night -- because

your eyes are so fixed. As I said, someone becomes shortsighted, someone else becomes farsighted. If he
goes on looking far, then he cannot look near. If he goes on looking near, then he cannot look far. Eyes
become fixed. They are mechanical; they lose the flexibility. Just as someone becomes nearsighted and
someone farsighted, we have become "outsighted". "Insightedness" will have to be developed.

You must have heard the word "insight", but you might not have heard the word "outsighted". You

know the word "insight", but it is meaningless unless you understand the word "outsight". We have become
outsighted, fixed; the insight has to be developed. So whenever you find time, close your eyes, close your
mind to the outside, and try to penetrate in. At first you will be in a deep dark night. Nothing will be there
except darkness. Don't be impatient. Wait and watch, and by and by darkness will become less, and you will
be able to feel many inner phenomena. And only when you become aware of the inner world, then only can
you become aware of the source from where this light is coming. Then enter the source. This the
Upanishads call "the bath".

How stupid the human mind is! We ritualize everything, and the significance is lost. Then only stupid

rituals remain. So we take a bath when we go to the temple. Neither the temple is there nor the bath. The
temple is inside and the bath also. And this bath, the Upanishads say, is the bath in inner illumination.

Light is really the bridge between the Divine and the world. The Divine creates the world through

creating light. Light is the first creation, and then light condenses and matter happens; then light grows, I
say light grows, and life happens; then life grows and love happens.

Light, life, love -- these are the three layers. Don't remain in the second layer. Either go back down to

the roots, or go up to the seeds again, to the flowers. Go down to light or go up to flowers. And there are
two paths. One is the path of knowledge. "Knowing" means going down to light. By "Gyana Yoga" the real
secret that is meant is this: going down to light. And then there is "Bhakti Yoga", the path of devotion; that
means going to love.

A Buddha goes down, a Meera goes up. A Mahavir goes down, a Chaitanya goes up. They speak very

contradictory languages. They are bound to, because one speaks about going to the roots. the source, and the
other speaks about going to the flowering, to the end, to the climax, to the peak. In a way, Buddha, Mahavir,
Patanjali -- their language is dry. It has to be because they are turning back to the source. There is no poetry,
there cannot be because they are not moving toward the flowering. They speak in a scientific way. A
Patanjali speaks as a scientist -- of laws. Buddha always says, "Do this, and this will happen. Doing this,
this follows. This is the cause, this is the effect."

They speak scientifically; they speak in terms of mathematics -- very dry. They speak in prose, never in

poetry. They cannot -- how can a physicist speak in poetry? He is digging deep to the source. He is not
concerned with the flowers at all. He is digging down to the roots. How can he speak in poetry? Chaitanya,
Meera, they speak a different language. They dance, they sing, because they are going up to the flowering.
And a flowering cannot happen without dancing and singing, without celebrating life itself. That's why
Buddha and Mahavir appear to be anti-life -- because they go to the roots. And Chaitanya and Meera look
very affirmative. They love life because they go up.

Both paths reach to the same end. Which one you take depends on you. If you have a very scientific

mind, mathematical, with no poetry in it, it is better to follow going down towards light. If you have a
prose-oriented mind, then go down. But if you have a poetic, aesthetic attitude, if you can sing and dance
and celebrate then don't move to the source; move to the flowering. You will reach to the same, because
once you reach to the flower you reach to the seed -- the flower is the seed again come back.

If you go down to the roots you again move. From life, you must move. Life is only a bridge. It is just a

stop-over. It is not the end. Move to this bank or to that, but life must not be static. It must be a movement
beyond itself -- to either bank, this or that.

Basically, these are the two dimensions of movement. Choose any! There is no question of which is

better. It depends on you -- which can be better for you. Both are equal. But for you both cannot be equal.
For you one must be preferable. That depends on you. So explore what your type is.

The type I call poetic is illogical, sensitive, a feeling type who can love deeply, totally. A knowing type

is not emotional, is not a feeling type. He is logical down to the bare bones. So some persons are logical,
intellectual, knowledge-oriented. Feel the difference. Whenever you are knowledge-oriented, your type is
for knowing, to know. When you are emotion-oriented, heart-oriented, your search is not for knowing --
your search is to be, to feel. And both are different in the beginning. In the end everything becomes one, but
in the beginning they are different. If you go to Meera and say to her that this is the way to know the Truth,
Meera will say, "What will I do by knowing the Truth? What will I do? I want to love the Truth."

But how can you love the Truth? That's why bhaktas never talk about Truth. They talk about the

Beloved; they talk about the Friend. They talk in terms of feeling! To say "God is Truth" locks
mathematical to them. Vinoba says that Cod must be a mathematician. It is not that God is, but that Vinoba's
mind is mathematical. His own love of mathematics makes God a mathematician. For a Pythagoras, God is

a mathematician. So it depends on you. If you feel God as a beloved, as a friend, as a lover, if you cannot
conceive of God as Truth, then go up, move vertically towards flowering. Then your meditation will be
more creative. Create poetry, create painting, create dance, create singing -- and through all these you will
come to the illumination.

But if your type is a knowing type, to call God a lover is just absurd. What do you mean? How can

Truth be a lover? To call God a father is meaningless. How can God be a father? He can be Truth. So if your
type is a knowing type, move vertically -- down. Move in the depth, not in the height -- to the roots, to the
source. When you come to your knowing, and when a bhakta comes to his feeling, you come to the same
center. But a bhakta moves upward, and a gyani moves downward.

This sutra is for those whose search is for knowing, because the Upanishads belong to the knowing type;

they are not for devotees But I mention this only so that you may be aware, because sometimes something
may appeal to you very much, but it may not belong to your type. Then don't be deceived. Appeal means
nothing, attraction means nothing -- unless there is an inner attuning. You may be attracted, but that will not
do. You must begin to feel that "This is my type; this is how I am." Then don't listen to anyone. We are
creating many confusions for each other because no one knows what he is talking about.

If you are a heart-oriented person. then don't listen to intellect, then don't listen to arguments, don't

argue. Just tell that "I am a heart-oriented person; I am not concerned with arguments at all." Don't listen to
arguments because they will confuse you. And sometimes you may even be attracted, because the opposite
has a sexual attraction. So it happens that an emotional person may be very much influenced by some
intellectual because he lacks this dimension, and one begins to feel that whatsoever one lacks is important.
And you cannot convince an intellectual, but he can convince you. You cannot argue for yourself, but he
can argue for himself. So your ego feels hurt and you begin to imitate. You miss your type, and it may be
for lives that you may not regain it. because once a process begins it is very difficult to come back.

And never mislead anyone. If you feel that someone is a heart type, then don't discuss with him even if it

doesn't appeal to you. Don't discuss, don't argue, don't say anything. Let him remain himself.

We are so violent that no one allows anyone to remain himself. Everyone is after everyone, everyone is

trying to convert everyone to his own way -- without knowing that he may be just destroying a very great
possibility. Insist on being yourself. There is no arrogance in it. This is a simple law that "I must be allowed
to be myself." But when you begin to talk in others' terms, sooner or later you will be pulled in. So if you
are an emotional type, then say directly, "I am not concerned with logic at all or with argument." Don't
argue, don't use the same terms or the same language. Just say, "I am irrational. I have faith without any
proofs with me -- but the faith is working and I don't need any proofs."

One very fatal thing has happened to the human mind, and that is that intellectuals have forcibly posed

themselves as the only right type. They have forced all over the world the view that they are the only right
type and that everyone else is wrong. Education belongs to them, schools belong to them, universities
belong to them. They create literature, they create argument, they create proofs, disproofs, they create
philosophies. So they have become over-dominant, and the emotional type is just feeling inferior: he feels
that he is nowhere. Really, there is no emotional education, only intellectual education. So he doesn't even
know the language of emotion, he doesn't know the argumentation of emotion, he doesn't know the logic of
the heart. He doesn't know at all, so he feels guilty. If he has faith, if he develops towards the Divine in love,
he feels guilty, he feels he is wrong. Never feel that way. Always feel your own pulse -- what you are, what
your nature is -- and then decide. Or, rather, let your nature decide.

So these are the two paths: either be bathed in inner light or be bathed in inner love. And then you will

be on the threshold -- the boundary from where grace begins to work. Move in and find the source, or move
out and find the beloved.

Remember this also: if you have to find the source, move in. If you have to find the beloved, move out.

For things you have also to move out, for the beloved you have also to move out. The attitude is different,
but the movement is the same. To find the beloved means to find the That in everything you encounter.
Move out and go on finding, and let a moment come when everywhere nothing remains except your
beloved. Then you are bathed in love, and the same will be the result.

Or, move in. If you are moving in, then you may even discard the very word "God". In old yoga texts,

God is not mentioned at all. And even in later yoga texts, God is mentioned only as a means. In order to
achieve That, God is mentioned as a means. And you can discard it; it is dispensable.

So a Buddha can reach without any concept of God, a Mahavir can reach without any concept of God --

but a Meera cannot reach without a concept of God. A Chaitanya cannot reach, because God is not

dispensable if your way is that of love -- because then where will you find the Beloved?

But move! Don't remain static in life. Move towards light or towards love!

The Ultimate Alchemy, Vol 1

Chapter #12

Chapter title: You are responsible

26 February 1972 am in

Archive code: 7202260

ShortTitle: ULTAL112

Audio:

Yes

Video:

No

OSHO, WHEN ONE EXPERIENCES DIFFERENT FORMS OF LIGHT AND COLOURS IN MEDITATION --
SUCH AS RED, YELLOW, BLUE, OCHRE, ETC. --
HOW CAN ONE KNOW TO WHICH LAYERS OF BEING THEY BELONG? IS THERE ANY GRADUAL
SEQUENCE OF COLOUR AND LIGHT EXPERIENCES BEFORE REACHING THE ULTIMATE LIGHT
EXPERIENCE?

LIGHT itself is colourless. All colours belong to light, but light is not a colour. Light is just the absence

of colors. Light is white; white is not a color. When light is divided, analyzed or passed through a prism,
then it is divided into seven colors.

Mind also works as a prism -- an inner prism. The outer light, if passed through a prism, is divided into

seven colors; the inner light, if passed through mind, is divided into seven colors. So the experience of
colors in the inward journey means that you are still in mind. The experience of light is beyond mind, but
the experience of colors is within mind. So if you are still seeing colors, then you are still within mind. The
mind has not been transcended.

So the first thing to remember is that the experience of colors is within mind, because mind works as a

prism through which the inner light is divided. So first one begins to experience colors; then colors dissolve
and only light remains.

Light is white; white is not a color. When all the colors are one, white is created. When all the colors are

one, then you feel white. When all the colors are there undivided, then you experience white. When no color
is there, then you experience black. Black and white are both not colors. When no color is present, then
there is black. When all colors are present, undivided, then there is white. All the colors are just divided
light.

If you are feeling colors inside, then one thing: you are within mind. So the experience of colors is

mental; it is not spiritual. The experience of light is spiritual, but not of colors -- because when mind is no
more you cannot experience colors. Then only light is experienced.

Secondly, there is no fixed sequence of colors. There cannot be because each mind differs. But the

experience of light is exactly the same. Buddha experiencing light or Jesus experiencing light the
experience is the same. It cannot be otherwise because that which creates differences is no more. Mind
creates differences.

We are here -- we are different because of our minds. If mind is no more, then the factor which divides,

which differentiates, is not there. So the experience of light is similar, but the experiences of colors are
different and the sequence differs. That's why, in each religion, a different sequence has been given. Some

believe that this color comes first and that comes in the end; others believe quite differently. That difference
is really the difference of minds. For example, a person who is fearful, deeply rooted in fear, will experience
yellow as the first color. The first color coming in will be yellow, because yellow is the color of death -- not
only symbolically, but actually also.

If you take three bottles -- one red, one yellow, one just white, plain white -- and just put into these three

bottles the same water, the yellow bottle will deteriorate first. Then the others will deteriorate. The red
bottle of water will deteriorate in the end, last. Yellow is a death color. That's why Buddha chose yellow as
the robe for his bhikkus -- because Buddha says that to die from this existence absolutely is Nirvana. So
yellow was chosen as a death color.

Hindus have chosen ochre, a shade of red, as the color for their sannyasins, because red or ochre is the

color of life -- just the opposite of yellow. It helps you to be more alive, more radiant. It creates more energy
-- not only symbolically, but actually, physically, chemically. So a person who is very energetic, alive,
deeply rooted in the love of life, will experience red as the first color, because his mind is more open to red.
A fear-oriented person is more open to yellow, so the sequence will differ. A very silent person, one who is
very still, will experience blue as the first. So it will depend.

There is no fixed sequence because there is no fixed sequence of your mind. Each mind differs in

orientation in tendencies, in structure, in character. Each mind differs! Because of this difference the
sequence will be different. But one thing is certain: each color has a fixed meaning. The sequence is not
fixed, it cannot be, but the meaning of the color is fixed.

For example, yellow is a death color. So whenever it happens first, it means you are fear-oriented -- that

your mind's first opening is for fear. So wherever you move, the first thing you will notice will be fear, or
the first reaction of your mind in any new situation will be fear. Whenever something strange is there, the
first response will be fear-filled. If red is the first color in your inner journey, then you are more rooted in
the love of life, and your reactions will be different. You will feel more alive, and your reactions will be
more life affirmative.

A person whose first experience is yellow will always interpret everything in terms of death, and a

person whose first experience is red will always interpret his experiences in terms of life. Even if someone
is just dying, he will begin to think that he must be reborn somewhere else. Even in death he will interpret
rebirth. But for the person whose first experience is yellow, even if someone is born he will begin to think
that he is going to die some day. These will be the attitudes. So a red-oriented person can be happy even. in
death, but a yellow-oriented person cannot be happy even in birth. He will be negative. Fear is a negative
emotion. Everywhere he will find something to be sad and negative about.

For example, I said that a very silent person will feel blue, but this means a silent person who is inactive

at the same time. A silent person who is active at the same time will feel green as the first experience.
Mohammed chose green as the color for his fakirs. Islam has green as the symbolic color. That is the color
of their flag. Green is both -- silent, still, but also active. Blue is just silent and inactive. So a person like
Lao Tzu will first begin to feel blue; a person like Mohammed will begin to feel green first. So the symbolic
system of colors is a fixed thing, but the sequence is not fixed.

Another thing has to be noted, and that is that seven colors are pure colors. But you can mix two, you

can mix three, and a new color comes out. So it may be that you never experience pure color in the
beginning. You may experience three colors, their combination, or two colors or four colors. Then again it
depends on your mind. If you have a very confused mind, then your confusion will be shown in the colors.

Now they have evolved in the West a color test in psychology. and it has been proving very meaningful.

Just giving you many colors and allowing you to choose the first preference, then the second, then the third,
then the fourth, decides much, shows much. If you are sincere and honest, then it shows much about your
mind, because you cannot choose without any inner cause. If you choose yellow first, the logic of it is that
then red will be the last. It has its own logic. If death is your first choice, then life is going to be your last,
you will put red as the last. And one who chooses red first will automatically choose yellow as the last. The
sequence will also show the structure of the mind.

But once, twice, thrice -- the cards are given to you again and again -- and the strange thing is that the

first time you choose yellow, your first preference, then the second time you are given the same cards but
you don't choose yellow as your first preference. The third time you choose something else, and the whole
sequence changes. So the cards are given seven times. If a person goes on choosing yellow as the first color
continuously for seven times, then it shows a very fixed mind -- very much fixed -- a fixation. This man is
constantly rooted in fear. He must be living in many phobias, because everything will take the shape of fear.

But if he is given the cards another seven times and now he changes -- once blue and once green and once
something else -- then there is a double sequence. One sequence in one series and another sequence in the
second series -- that also shows much. In the second series, if he never repeats one color as his first
preference, that shows he is very fluctuating and nothing can be decisively said about him. He will be
unpredictable. And the sequence also changes because the mind is changing constantly.

Recently, because of LSD, marijuana and other drugs, many things have come up from the unconscious

mind. When Aldous Huxley told about his experiences with LSD, he talked as if he had entered heaven.
Everything was beautiful, utopian, colorful, poetic. Nothing was bad in it. There was nothing like a
nightmare -- nothing of fear or death. Everything was alive, abundantly alive, rich. But when Zaehner took
it, he entered hell. With the same LSD he entered hell, and it was a long nightmare -- horrorfilled,

Both misinterpreted their experiences. Aldous Huxley thought that this was a quality of LSD and that

because of LSD this heaven experience had come up. Zaehner interpreted quite diametrically opposite from
Huxley and he said, "It is just a nightmare, a deep horror. One must not go into it -- it can create madness."
But the interpretation is on the same lines: he also thought that it was LSD which had created this
experience.

The reality is different. It was LSD working only as a catalytic agent. LSD cannot create heaven, cannot

create hell. LSD can only open you, and whatsoever is in you is projected. So if Zaehner's experience is
absolutely colorless it is because of Zaehner's mind, and if Huxley's experience is colorful it is because of
Huxley's mind. LSD can only give you a glimpse into your own mind. It can open your own deeper layers.
So if you have a suppressed unconscious inside, then you may enter hell; or if you have nothing suppressed,
if you have a relaxed unconscious, a natural one, then you may enter heaven -- but that will depend on what
type of mind you have. The same happens when one goes deep into an inner journey: whatsoever you
encounter is your own mind. Remember this -- whatsoever you encounter, it is your own mind.

The color sequence is also your own mind's sequence, but one has to go beyond colors. Whatsoever the

sequence, one has to go beyond colors. So one must continuously remember that colors are mental. They
cannot exist without mind -- the mind working as a prism. When you go beyond mind, there is light --
colorless, absolutely white. And when this whiteness begins to be there, only then have you gone beyond
mind.

Jains have chosen white as the color for their monks and for their nuns, and the choice is meaningful. As

Buddhists have chosen yellow and Hindus ochre, Jains have chosen white, because they say only when
white begins does spirituality really begin. Mohammed has chosen green because he says if silence is dead,
then it is meaningless. Silence must be active, it must participate in the world, so a saint must also be a
soldier. He has chosen green. All colors are meaningful.

There is a Sufi sect which uses black -- black clothes for their fakirs. Black is also very, very

meaningful. It shows absence of color, everything absent. It is just the contrary of white. Sufis say that
unless we become totally absent, the God cannot be present to us. So one must be like black -- absolutely
absent, a nonentity, a nonbeing, just a nothingness. They have chosen black.

Colors are meaningful. So with whatsoever you choose you show much. Even your clothes indicate

much. Nothing is just accidental. If you have chosen a particular color for your clothes, it is not accidental.
You may not be aware why you have chosen it, but science is aware -- and it shows much. Your clothes
show much because they belong to your mind, and your mind chooses. You cannot choose without your
mind having certain leanings, certain tendencies.

So the sequence will be different, but all sequences and all colors belong to your mind. Don't be

bothered much about them. Whatsoever color is felt, just go on passing it; don't stick to it. Sticking to it is
the natural tendency. If some beautiful color is there, one becomes stuck to it -- don't. Move! Remember
that colors belong to mind. And if some color is fearful, one goes back so that it is not felt. That too is not
good, because if you go back no transformation is possible. Pass through it! Don't go back. It is your mind:
pass through it! Even if a color is fearful, even if ugly, even if chaotic or beautiful or harmonious,
whatsoever, go through it.

You must reach a point where colors are not, but only light remains. That entry into light is spiritual.

Everything before that is mental.

WHAT ARE THE PHYSICAL AND PSYCHIC FACTORS THAT ARE NECESSARY FOR THE ENCOUNTER
OF THE INNER LIGHT IN MEDITATION? AND HOW CAN ONE GROW IN THEM?

Three things to be remembered: one, you must be consciously frustrated about the life outside --

consciously frustrated! We are all frustrated but unconsciously. And whenever we are frustrated
unconsciously, we only change objects of desire. But one object changed for another will not help you to go
in. You remain outside. You change one thing for another, then for another. Because you are frustrated by
object A, you substitute your desire by object B. Then you are frustrated by object B, so you go on to C.
You go on changing objects because you are only unconsciously frustrated. If you become conscious, then
you will not change objects -- you will change direction.

I can change. I can love one woman, then another, then another. I can love one man, then another, then

another. This is unconscious frustration. So I think that A is not good and B might be, so I choose B. Then B
is not good and -- who knows? -- C may be, so I choose C. This is unconscious frustration. If you become
conscious, then it is not a question of A, B or C. It is a question of the very relationship, of the very
expectation, of the very desire. This desire to get happiness through someone else is the root. You go on
changing persons, but this direction is never changed.

When I say become consciously frustrated, I mean know well that persons are irrelevant. Unless you

change your direction in the search for happiness nothing is going to happen. So there are two ways: either
change A for object B or change direction A for direction B. A is outward-going, B is inward-going -- so
change the direction. By changing the direction you begin to change yourself; by changing objects you
remain the same.

I can go on changing objects for years and years, and lives and lives. I will remain the same. And with

every object, since I am the same, the same is going to be the result, the same suffering is going to follow.
When I say be consciously frustrated, I mean don't be frustrated by others -- be frustrated by yourself, be
frustrated about yourself. Then only does the direction change.

We are all frustrated by everyone else. The husband is frustrated by the wife, and the wife is frustrated

by the husband; and the son is frustrated by the father, and the father is frustrated by the son. Everyone is
frustrated by others. This is the outgoing mind. Be frustrated with yourself, and then the direction changes:
you begin to be ingoing. And unless you are frustrated with yourself there is no possibility for
transformation.

A Buddha is not really frustrated by the world. If he is frustrated by the world, he must try to change it

for another world, he must try to get another world. He is really frustrated with himself, so he begins to
change himself. The object of frustration becomes the object of transformation.

So the inward journey begins, the search for inner life begins. only when you begin to feel that outside is

nothing but darkness. And unless you turn your eyes inwards, light is not to be found. So the first thing: be
consciously frustrated. But this much is not enough. It is necessary, but not enough, because you can be
frustrated with yourself and can go on living in frustration. Then you will be just a living corpse. You will
be just dead -- a burden to yourself. This is necessary, but not enough.

The second thing to realize is that whatsoever you are it is because of you yourself. We say, "I am like

this because of my destiny, because of the Divine Creator, because of the forces of nature, because of
heredity, because of environment, because of society." Whatsoever I am, I am always because of something
or someone else. It may be the God in heaven, or it may be the heredity in the books of biology, or it may be
just the society of the communists, or it may be just the childhood trauma of Freudians -- but something
else. You are not responsible.

The society has gone on changing causes. Sometimes it is God: then you are at ease. Then whatsoever

you are, you cannot help it. Then sometimes it is karma: it is past actions which have produced you as you
are, and nothing can be done. Then communism says it is the society. Communism says that it is not
consciousness which determines the society; on the contrary. it is the society which determines
consciousness. You are just a cog in the wheel. You have been determined. You have been manipulated.
You are a by-product, so you are not responsible.

Then Freudians say that it is not economics as Marx says. Really, it is the childhood which determines

you. So whatsoever you are, your seven years of childhood have made you that way. Now you cannot be a
child again, and those seven years cannot be changed. So whatsoever you are, you are. At the most, through
psychoanalysis, you can come to an adjustment with yourself. You can begin to feel: "Okay, now nothing
can be done. and I am as I am." Again you begin to deteriorate.

You can be frustrated with yourself: this is a negative part. The positive, the second thing, is to

remember that whatsoever you are, you are responsible. Society may have played a part, and even destiny
may have played a part, and childhood also may have played a part, but ultimately you are responsible. This
feeling is the base of all religion. So if Freudians win and Marxists win, religion will disappear -- because
the base of religion is the possibility that you can transform, the possibility that you can change yourself.
And this possibility depends on the feeling of whether you are responsible for yourself or not.

If I am just determined by my cells, by heredity, then what can I do? I cannot change my bio-cells. That

is not possible. And if my bio-cells have a built-in program, they will go on unfolding. What can I do? And
if God has determined everything, then what can I do? And it makes no difference whether it is God or
biocells or heredity or childhood -- it makes no difference! The basic thing is that if you are putting your
responsibility on something else, X-Y-Z, you cannot go in.

So the second thing: remember, whatsoever you are -- if you are sexual -- you are responsible. If you

are angry, anger-filled, if you are afraid, if fear is your chief characteristic, then you are responsible.
Everything else may have played a part, but only a part, and that part also can be played only because you
cooperated. And if you destroy your cooperation this very moment, you will be different. So the second
positive thing is to be constantly aware that whatsoever you are, you are responsible.

It is difficult. To feel frustrated is very easy. Even to feel frustrated with oneself is not very difficult, but

to feel that "whatsoever I am, I am responsible" is very difficult -- very difficult, because then there is no
excuse. This is one thing. And, secondly, if whatsoever I am, I am responsible for it, then if I am not
changing. I am responsible even for that. If I am not transforming, then no one else but I am guilty. That's
why we create many theories -- to escape from one's own responsibility.

Responsibility is the basis of all religious transformation. You may have heard someone say that to

believe in God is the base of religion. It is not! One can be religious without any god, and one can be very
irreligious with all the gods. Someone else says it is rebirth, reincarnation, that is the base. It is not, because
you can believe in reincarnation and your life's duration becomes longer, but how, by just a longer duration,
can you become religious? Time is not the factor to make you religious. You may be eternal: how does it
help you to be religious?

No, the real thing, the base of all religiousness, is the feeling of responsibility -- you are responsible for

yourself. Then suddenly something opens in you. If you are responsible, then you can change. With this you
can enter inwards. So feel frustrated with yourself.

Nietzsche has said somewhere, very beautifully, that that day will be the doomsday when no one feels

frustrated with oneself, because then there is no possibility for further evolution. But I must add hurriedly
that even if everyone feels frustrated, but no one feels responsible for it, that will be an even greater
doomsday.

Frustration is negative. Feel responsible positively, and you gain much power. The moment you know

that if you are bad it is because of you, then you can be good. Then it is in your hands. You gain power, you
become powerful. You release much energy, and only this releasing of energy can be used for the inner
journey, just as when an atom is split, much energy is released. That is what is meant by atomic energy. Just
like that, if in your mind this thing goes deep that "I am responsible for whatsoever I am, and whatsoever I
like to be I can be," this concept will release much energy. And only with that energy can you go to the
inner light.

And, thirdly, remain continuously in discontent unless the light is achieved -- continuously in

discontent! Again, that is one of the most basic qualities of a religious mind. Ordinarily we think that a
religious man is a contented man. That is nonsense. He looks contented because he has the discontent of
another dimension. He looks contented. He can live in a poor house, he can live in ordinary clothes, he can
live naked, he can live under a tree. He can look contented, not because he is contented with these things,
but because, really, his discontent has gone towards other things, and now he cannot be bothered with these
things.

He is so discontented with the inner revolution, so discontented hoping for inner light, that he cannot

bother about these things. These things have just become peripheral. Really, they don't mean anything to
him. It is not that he is contented -- they don't mean anything, they are irrelevant! They are somewhere on
the periphery; he is not concerned. But he lives in a deep discontent, in a fiery discontent, and only that
discontent can lead you inwards.

Remember, it is discontent which leads you outside. If you are discontented with your house, then you

can make a bigger one. If you are discontented with your financial position, you can change it. In the

outward journey, it is discontent which leads you on and on. The same is the factor in the inward journey
also. Be discontented! Unless you achieve light, unless you transcend mind, be discontent, remain
discontented -- this is the third point.

These three points: frustration with oneself, not with others; responsibility on oneself, not on others; and

a new discontent for something which is inner -- these will help. Even in a single moment it is possible to
reach the ultimate goal. But then you must be absolutely discontented. Then lukewarm discontents will not
do. Then you must be uncompromising. Then nothing should deter you, nothing should come in your way.
Whatsoever happens outside, you must be unconcerned about it, because you have no energy to move that
way. All the energy is moving inwards. These three things can help you.

These are just helps. The central thing is meditation. Meditate, and with these helps the inner light can

be achieved. It is there, it is not far off -- only you have no discontent, only you have no longing for it, or
your longing is just dissipated outside. Accumulate it, collect it, and turn the direction. The arrow must not
move from you towards the world. The arrow must move from you towards yourself, to the center. So
meditation has to be done! These three are just helps. Without meditation these three will not do anything,
but meditation can do even without them. They are just helps.

But when I say meditation can do even without them, don't misunderstand me, don't think that they are

not needed. For ninety-nine percent of people those helps are a must, because unless these three things are
there you are not going to meditate at all. Only for one percent these three are not needed -- not because
they are inessential, but because meditation is such a whole-hearted effort in itself that nothing is needed as
a side help.

I remember a Sufi mystic, Hassan. He went to his teacher and he asked the teacher, "Tell me, what am I

to do?"

The teacher began to explain to him; he was going to deliver a long lecture. This Hassan was just new to

him, he didn't know him. He simply said, "Meditation.." This was just the beginning word. He was going to
tell many things, but first he simply said, "Meditation..." Hassan closed his eyes. The teacher looked at him
and said, "Are you feeling sleepy?" but he had gone.

The teacher had to wait for hours. When he came back, the teacher said, "What were you doing here? I

just began to explain, and you closed your eyes. For what have you come to me?"

Hassan said, "But you said the key word to me. You said 'meditation'. It is more than enough. What

more is needed now? I went in, and I am thankful that you gave me the key."

But this one percent type is rare. To find a Hassan is rare. It is rare: just a word can click something. He

was just on the verge -- just a push: "meditation", he hears a word and takes the jump.

Even this may not have been necessary. Many times it has happened that a bird flies in the sky, and

someone achieves Enlightenment. Not even the word "meditation" is uttered. Just a bird flies in the sky
against the sun, and someone achieves meditation. A dry leaf falls down from the tree, and someone sees it
and achieves -- and achieves! These people are just on the verge. Anything absolutely irrelevant-looking
can do it. How does it make sense?

Lao Tzu achieved his Enlightenment. He was just sitting under a tree and a dry leaf fell down. He

looked at the fallen leaf, and he began to dance. And if anyone would ask him he would say, "How can I
teach you? It is very difficult. Sit under a tree, let a dry leaf fall down, look at it, and it happens -- and one
begins to dance!" And he was really not joking. This had happened to him.

But such a simple, innocent mind is rare. He was meditating and meditating, upon life, upon death -- and

then a sudden dry leaf drops down, and everything opens. Life disappears, death becomes the reality. And in
the dropping of the leaf he sees his own death, and everything is finished. But this is rare. For ninety-nine
percent of people helps are musts, so don't misunderstand me.

OSHO, AS ONE USUALLY FLUCTUATES BETWEEN BOTH TYPES -- EMOTIONAL AND INTELLECTUAL
-- HOW CAN ONE COME TO A FINAL DECISION AS TO WHICH TYPE ONE BELONGS?

It is difficult. First thing: three are the basic types -- intellectual (cognitive), emotional (emotive), and,

thirdly, active. These are the three basic types.

"Intellectual" means one whose authentic urge is to know. He can stake his life for knowing. Someone

working on poison can take poison just to know what happens. We cannot conceive of it. He looks stupid --

because he will die! And what is the meaning of knowing a thing if you are going to die? What will you do
by this knowledge? But then the intellectual type puts knowing above living, above life. To know is life for
him, not to know is death for him. To know is his love, not to know is just to be useless.

A Socrates, a Buddha, a Nietzsche, they are in search of knowing what being is, what we are -- to them

this is basic. Socrates says an uncomprehended life is not worth living. If you don't know what life is, then it
is meaningless. For us it may not look at all meaningful, the statement may not look meaningful at all,
because we go on living and we don't feel the need to know what life is. This is the type who lives to know.
Knowledge is his love. This type developed philosophy. Philosophy means love of knowledge, to know.

The second type is emotive. To feel! Knowledge is meaningless unless one feels it. Something becomes

meaningful to them only when one feels it -- one must feel it! Feeling is through a deeper center -- the heart.
Knowing is through the first center -- intellect. One must feel! Poets belong to this category: painters,
dancers, musicians. Knowing is not enough. It is just dry, it is without heart, heartless. Feeling! So an
intellectual type can dissect a flower in order to know what it is, but a poet cannot dissect it. He can love it,
and how can love dissect? He can feel it, and he knows that only through feeling is the real knowing.

So it may be that a scientist knows more about a flower, but still, a poet cannot be convinced that he

knows more. A poet knows that he knows more, and he knows deeply. A scientist is only acquainted -- the
poet knows from heart to heart, he has a talk with the flower heart to heart. He has not dissected it. He
doesn't know what the chemistry of it is. He doesn't know! He may not even know the name, to what species
this flower belongs, but he says, "I know the very spirit."

Hui-Hai, a Zen painter, was ordered by the Chinese Emperor to paint some flowers for his palace.

Hui-Hai said, "Then I will have to live with flowers."

But the Emperor said, "There is no need. In my garden every flower is there. You go and paint!"
Hui Hai said, "Unless I feel the flowers, how can I paint? I must know the spirit. And by eyes how can

the spirit be known, and by hands how can the spirit be touched? So I will have to live in intimacy with
them.

"Sometimes with closed eyes, just sitting by their side, just feeling the breeze that communicates, just

feeling the scent that comes, I can be just in a silent communion with them. Sometimes the flower is just a
bud, sometimes the flower flowers. Sometimes the flower is young and the mood is different, and
sometimes the flower becomes old and death lingers. And sometimes the flower is happy and celebrating,
and sometimes the flower is sad. So how can I just go and paint? I will have to live with the flowers. And
the flower that was born, one day will die! I must know the whole biography. I must live with it from its
birth to death, and I must feel it in its so many multi-multi moods.

"I must know how it feels in the night when darkness is there, and how it feels in the morning when the

sun has come up, and how, when a bird flies and a bird sings, how the flower feels then. How, when storm
winds come, and how when everything is silent... I must know it in its multiplicity of being -- intimately --
as a friend, as a participant, as a witness, as a lover. I must be related to it! Only then can I paint it, and then
too I cannot promise, because the flower may prove such a vastness that I may not be capable of painting it.
So I cannot promise, I can only try."

Six months passed, and the Emperor became impatient. Then he said, "Where is that Hui-hai? Is he still

trying to commune?"

The gardener said, "We cannot disturb him. He has become so intimate with the trees that sometimes we

pass just nearby and we cannot feel that a man is there! -- he has become just a tree. He goes on
contemplating."

Six months had passed. The Emperor came and he said, "What are you doing? When will you paint?"
Hui-Hai said, "Don't disturb me. If I am to paint, I must forget about painting completely. So don't let

me remember again! Don't disturb me! How can I live intimately if there is some purpose? How is intimacy
possible if I am just here as a painter and just trying to be intimate because I have to paint? What nonsense!
No business is possible here -- and don't come again. When the right time comes I will come myself, but I
cannot promise. The right time may come or it may not come."

And for three years the Emperor waited. Then Hui-Hai came. He came into his royal court, and the

Emperor said, "Now don't paint it because you have become just like a flower. I see in you all the flowers I
have seen! In your eyes, in your gestures, in your moving, in your walking, you have become just a flower."

Hui-Hai said, "I have come just to say that I cannot paint, because the man who was thinking to paint is

no more."

This is a different way, that of the emotive type who knows by feeling. For the intellectual type, even to

feel he has to know first. He knows first, and only then can he feel. His feeling is also through knowing.
Then there is a third type: active -- a creative type. He cannot remain with knowing or feeling. He has to
create. He can know only through creation. Unless he creates something, he cannot know it. Only through
being a creator does he become a knower.

This third type lives in action. Now what do I mean by "action"? Many dimensions are possible, but this

third type is always action-oriented. He will not ask what life means, what life is, He will ask, "What is life
to do? What it for? What to create?" If he can create, then he is at ease. His creations may differ: he may be
a creator of human beings, he may be a creator of a society, he may be a creator of a painting -- but
creativity is there. For example, this Hui-Hai: he was not an active type, so he dissolved himself into feeling
totally. Had he been an active type, he would have painted. Only through painting would he have been
fulfilled. So these are three types.

Many things have to be understood: one, I said that Buddha and Nietzsche both belong to the first type

-- but Buddha belongs rightly and Nietzsche belongs wrongly. If an intellectual type really develops, then
he will become a Buddha; but if he goes on a wrong path, if he goes berserk and misses the point, he will
become a Nietzsche, he will go mad. Through knowing he will not be a Realized soul; through knowing he
will become mad! Through knowing he will not come to a deep trust. Through knowing he will go on
creating doubts, doubts, doubts, and ultimately, webbed in his own doubts, he will just be insane. Buddha
and Nietzsche both belong to the same type, but they are two extremes. Nietzsche can become a Buddha,
Buddha can become a Nietzsche. If a Buddha goes wrong, he will be mad. If a Nietzsche goes right, he will
be a Realized soul.

In the feeling type I will name Meera and De Sade. Meera belongs to the right kind. If feeling goes

right, it develops into a love of the Divine -- but if it goes wrong, then it becomes sexual peversity. De Sade
belongs to the same type, but his feeling goes on wrongly, and then he becomes just a peverted man, just
abnormally insane. If the feeling type goes wrong, he becomes sexually perverted. If the intellectual type
goes wrong, he becomes sceptically mad.

And, thirdly, action: Hitler and Gandhi both belong to the third type. If it goes right, then a Gandhi is

there. If it goes wrong, then a Hitler. Both belong to action. They cannot live without doing something. But
doing can be just insane, and a Hitler is insane. He was doing, but the doing became destructive. If the
active type goes right, then he is creative; if wrong, then he becomes destructive.

These are three basic pure types. But no one is a pure type: that is the difficulty. These are just types! No

one is a pure type; everyone is just mixed. And all the three are in everyone. So, really, it is not a question
of to which type you belong; the real question is which type is predominant. Just to explain it to you I
divided. No one is a pure type, no one can be -- because all the three are in you. If all three are in a balance,
then you have a harmony; if all the three are unbalanced, then you go berserk, insane. That is the difficulty
in deciding. So decide which is predominant -- that is your type.

How to decide which is predominant? How to know to what type I belong or what type is more

significant to me, primary to me? All the three will be there, but one will be secondary. So there are two
criteria to be remembered: one, if you are a knowing type, then all your experiences basically will begin
with knowing, never with anything else. For example, if a knowing type falls in love with someone, he
cannot fall at first sight. He cannot! Impossible! First he must know, be acquainted, and it will be a long
procedure. Decision can come only through a long knowing process. That's why this type of person will
always miss many opportunities -- because a moment's decision is needed, and this type cannot decide in the
moment.

That's why this type is ordinarily never active. He cannot be, because by the time he can conclude, the

moment has passed. When he is thinking, the moment is passing. When he comes to a conclusion, the
conclusion is meaningless. When the moment was there to conclude, he could not. So active he cannot be.
And this is one of the calamities in the world -- that those who can think cannot be active, and those who
can be active cannot think. This is one of the basic calamities, but it is so.

And always remember, the knowing type consists of very few. The percentage is very small -- two or

three percent at the most. For them everything will begin by knowing. Only then will feeling follow and
only then action. This will be the sequence with this type -- knowing, feeling, action. He may miss, but he
cannot do otherwise. He will think first.

The second thing to remember is that this knowing type will begin with knowing, will never conclude

before knowing, and will not take any prejudice unless pro and con have been known. This type becomes a
scientist. This type can become an absolutely impartial philosopher, scientist, observer.

So whatsoever your reaction, action, always find out where it begins. The beginning point will decide

the predominance. One who belongs to emotion will begin to feel first, and then he will gather all the
reasons. Reasoning will be secondary. He will begin to feel first. He sees you, and he decides in his heart
that you are good or you are bad. This decision is a feeling decision. He doesn't know about you, but at first
sight he will decide. He will feel whether you are good or you are bad, and then he will go on accumulating
reasons for whatsoever he has decided beforehand.

The feeling type decides first. Then reasoning follows, then he rationalizes. So see in yourself whether

you decide first, upon just seeing a person, whether you become convinced that he is good, bad, loving,
non-loving, and then you create reasons, then you try to convince yourself about your own feeling: "Yes, I
was right, he is good, and these are the reasons. I have known. I have found out. I have talked with others.
Now I can say he is good." But "he is good" was a conclusion first.

So with a feeling type the syllogism of logic is just the reverse: the conclusion comes first, then the

process. With the reasoning type, the conclusion is never first. First the process, then he concludes in the
end. So go on finding out about yourself. What is your way of deciding things? With the active type, action
is first. He decides in the moment to act, then he begins to feel, then in the end he creates reasons.

I told you that Gandhi is an active type. He decides first. That's why he will say, "This is not my

decision. God decided in me." Really, action comes to him so immediately, with no process, that how can
he say, "I have decided"? A thinking type will always say, "I have decided." A feeling type will always say,
"I feel like that." But an active type -- a Mohammed, a Gandhi -- they will always say, "Neither have I felt,
nor have I thought. This decision has come to me." From where? From nowhere! If he doesn't believe in
God, then he will say, "From nowhere! This decision has bubbled up in me. I don't know from where."

If he believes in God, then God becomes the decision-maker. Then He says everything, and Gandhi goes

on doing. So Gandhi can say only, "I erred, but the decision was not mine." He can say, "I may not have
followed rightly, I may not have understood the message rightly, I may not have gone as far as I should, but
the decision was Divine. I had just to fall in. I had just to surrender and follow." For Mohammed, for
Gandhi, that is the way.

I said that Hitler is a wrong type, but he also talks in these terms. He also says, "This is not Adolph

Hitler who is speaking. This is the very spirit of history. This is the whole Aryan mind! This is a race mind
speaking through me." And, really, many have felt this in him. Those who have heard Hitler, they have felt
that when he was speaking he was not Adolph Hitler at all. It was as if he was just a vehicle of a greater
force. The active man always looks like that. Because he acts so immediately, you cannot say that he
decides, he thinks, he feels -- no! He acts! And the action is so spontaneous that how can you conceive from
where the action comes? So either it comes from God or it comes from the Devil, but it comes from
somewhere else. And then Hitler and Gandhi will both go on reasoning about it; but they will decide first.

For example, Gandhi decided about a long fast. At midnight he awoke, then he decided. Then in the

morning he told his friends, "Now I am going for a long fast."

Everyone just couldn't understand what he was saying. They said to him, "We were here -- you never

informed us, you never talked about it. In the evening we were talking about many things, and you never
even mentioned anything about it."

But Gandhi said, "It was not on my part, the decision was not on my part. Just in the night, sleep was not

there -- suddenly I found myself awakened and there was a Divine message that I must go on a long fast."
But for what? Then Gandhi finds out all the reasons. Those reasons are added later.

These are the three types. If action comes to you first and then feeling and then thinking, then you can

determine your predominant factor. And to determine that predominant factor is very helpful, because then
you can proceed straight; otherwise your progress will always be zigzag. When you don't know what type
you are, you go on unnecessarily in dimensions, directions. where you should not go. When you know your
type, you know what is to be done with yourself, how to do it, from where to begin. The first point:
remember what comes first and what second. And the second will look very strange.

For example, the active type can do the opposite very easily; that is, he can relax very easily. The active

type can relax very easily! Gandhi's relaxation was miraculous. He could relax anywhere. So it seems very
paradoxical. An active type must be so tense that he cannot relax. But this is not the case. Only an active
type can relax very easily. A thinking type cannot relax so easily, a feeling type finds it even more difficult
to relax, but an active can relax very easily.

So the second criterion is that whatsoever the type to which you belong, you can move to the opposite

very easily. So remember, if you can move to the opposite, that is your predominant type. If you can relax

very easily, you belong to the active type. If you can go into non-thinking, no-thought, very easily, then you
belong to the thinking type. If you can go into no-feeling very easily, you belong to the feeling type.

And this is strange because ordinarily we think, "A feeling type -- how can he go into non-feeling? A

thinking type, how can he go into non-thinking? An active type, how can he go into nonaction?" But it only
appears paradoxical -- it is not. It is one of the basic laws that opposites belong together, two extremes
belong together, just like the pendulum of a big clock -- just like the pendulum it goes to the extreme left,
then to the extreme right. And when it has reached to the peak at the right, it begins to move towards the
left. When it is going right, it is accumulating momentum for going left. When it is going left, when it looks
as if it is going left, it is getting ready to go right. So the opposite is easy.

Remember, if you can relax easily, you belong to the active type. If you can meditate easily, you belong

to the thinking type. That's why a Buddha can go into meditation so easily. That's why a Gandhi can relax so
easily -- even in a car accident.

There is a car accident, and it is time for Gandhi to relax for his afternoon nap. But the car cannot reach

the place where he is going, so those in the car have to wait. It is a deadly accident; everyone has become so
fearful and afraid. But just by the side of the road he goes to sleep. He cannot wait! This is the time for his
afternoon sleep, so he sleeps. When another car comes to find him, he is in deep sleep.

The active type can move so easily to relaxation. A Nehru cannot conceive how this miracle happens --

it becomes miraculous for him. He is not the active type; he cannot relax. Gandhi could relax many times in
a day. He was sleeping many times. Whenever he would find time, he would sleep. Sleep was so easy.

A Buddha can go into non-thinking, a Socrates can go into non-thinking, very easily. Ordinarily, it looks

difficult. A person who can think so much, how can he just dissolve thinking? How can he just go into
no-thought? Buddha's whole message is of no-thought, and he was a thinking type. He has thought so much,
really, that he is still new.

Twenty-five centuries have passed, but Buddha still belongs to the contemporary mind. No one belongs

to the contemporary mind so much. Even a present-day thinker cannot say that Buddha is old. He has
thought much -- centuries ahead -- and he still has appeal. So whosoever thinks anywhere, Buddha has an
appeal for him because he is the purest type. But his message is: Go into non-thinking. Those who have
thought deeply, they have always said, "Go into non-thinking." Why is it so easy for them? They can just
move.

And the feeling type can go into non-feeling. For example, Meera, she is a feeling type; Chaitanya, he is

a feeling type. Their feeling is so much that they cannot remain loving just towards a few persons or a few
things. They must love the whole world. This is their type. They cannot be satisfied with limited love, love
must be unlimited, it must spread to the infinite.

One day Chaitanya went to a teacher. He had become Enlightened in his own right. His name was

known all over Bengal, and then one day he went to a teacher, a teacher of Vedanta; he put his head at his
feet. The teacher became afraid, scared, because he respected Chaitanya so much. And he said, "Why have
you come to me? What do you want? You have Realized yourself. I cannot teach you anything." Chaitanya
said, "Now I want to move into vairagya -- non-attachment. I have lived the life of feeling, now I want to
move into no-feeling. So help me."

A feeling type can move, and Chaitanya moved. Ramakrishna was the feeling type. In the end he moved

to Vedanta. The whole life he was a worshipper, a devotee, of the Mother, and then in the end he became a
disciple of a Vedanta teacher, Totapuri, and was initiated into a non-feeling world. And many people said to
Totapuri, "How can you initiate this man, Ramakrishna? He is a feeling type! For him love is the only thing.
He can pray, he can worship, he can dance, he can go into ecstasy. He cannot move to non-attachment, he
cannot move to the realm beyond feelings."

Totapuri said, "That's why he can move, and I will initiate him. You cannot move; he will move."
So the second criterion to decide: if you can move to the opposite, you belong. See what the beginning

is, and then the movement towards the opposite: these are two things. And search within constantly. Only
for twenty-one days, continuously note these two things: first how you react -- what the beginning is, the
seed, the start -- and then to what opposite you can move easily. To nonthinking? To non-feeling? To
non-action? And within twenty-one days you can come to an understanding of your type -- the predominant
one, of course.

The other two will be there like shadows -- mm? -- because pure types never exist. They cannot. All the

three are parts; only one is more significant than the others. And once you know what type you are, your
path becomes very easy and smooth. Then you don't waste your energy. Then you don't dissipate your

energy unnecessarily on paths which don't belong to you. So, really, to find out one's type is a basic
requirement for spiritual search. Otherwise you can go on doing many things, and you create only
confusion, you create only a disintegration. This is what Krishna means in the Gita by swabhav -- the type,
that which is your nature. So he says it is better to die unsuccessful in one's own type than to succeed in
another's type. It is better to be a failure -- even to be a failure -- according to one's own type than to be a
success according to someone else's type, because that success will become a burden, just a weight, a dead
weight. And even to fail according to your own nature is good, because even that failure will enrich you.
You will be matured through it, you will know much through it, you will become much through it. So even
failure is good if it is according to one's own type.

Find out to which type you belong or which type is predominant. Then according to that type begin to

work. The work will be easy and the goal nearer.

The Ultimate Alchemy, Vol 1

Chapter #13

Chapter title: Transcendence Through Being

1 June 1972 pm in Bombay, India

Archive code: 7206015

ShortTitle: ULTAL113

Audio:

Yes

Video:

No

SARVATRA BHAVANA GANDHAH
THE FEELING OF THAT EVERYWHERE IS GANDHA -- THE ONLY FRAGRANCE.

THE INDIAN metaphysics divides Existence into two realms. One is "this" -- that which can be pointed

out; and another is "That" -- that which is beyond this, which cannot be pointed out. The Sanskrit word for
Truth is SATYA. This Sanskrit word is very meaningful and very beautiful. It is a combination of two
words: sat and tat. Sat means "this" and tat means "That", satya means "this plus That is Truth". So first we
should understand what "this" is and what "That" is.

That which can be perceived, that which can be understood, that which can be comprehended, that

which can be pointed out, fingered out, that which can be shown, that which can be seen -- all belong to
"this". That which cannot be seen but yet is, that which cannot be comprehended but yet is, that which
cannot be contemplated but yet is, belongs to "That". So "this" means the known and the knowable, and
"That" means the unknown and the unknowable. The known plus the unknown is the Truth: this plus That is
satya.

So this division is very meaningful, significant. Without giving it any name, we simply call it "this" and

"That". Whatsoever science can know is this, and whatsoever science cannot know is That. Science is
concerned with this, and religion is concerned with That. That's why between science and religion there is
no meeting, and there cannot be really. That meeting is in a way impossible. This cannot become That. That
means all which transcends -- that which is always beyond. The very beyondness is That. So they cannot
have a meeting, and yet they are not separate, yet there is no gap, there is no gulf. So how to understand it?

It is like this: darkness and light never meet, yet they are not separate. Where light ends, darkness

begins. There is no gap -- yet they never meet, yet they never overlap. They cannot. Where light ends,
darkness begins. Where light is, darkness is not. Where darkness is, light is not. They never overlap, they
never meet -- and yet there is no gap, there is no distance. They never meet, yet they are very near. The

boundary of one is the boundary of the other also. There is really no gap at all.

The same is the phenomenon with this and That -- the world, this; and the Truth, That -- they never

meet, they never overlap, yet there is no gap. In a way they are always meeting somewhere, because where
one ends the other begins -- yet there is no overlapping. Light can grow more, then the darkness will go
further away, Science can know more, but whatsoever it knows becomes this. The That goes further away; it
can never touch it -- yet is just on the boundary. It is there just by the comer where it ends. To call it "That"
means it is far away -- beyond, transcending.

The this is very near; That is far away. This is known by our senses, intellect, mind. We already know it.

Our knowledge, our mind, has a focus. The realm upon which this focus falls is this; the beyond is That.
The Indian yogis have not even called it God, because once you use such words -- God, Soul, Nirvana,
MOKSHA -- it seems as if that unknown has become known to you. The word "That" shows that the
unknown is still unknown. You feel it, but yet you cannot express it. Somewhere it penetrates you, but still
you cannot say, "It has become my knowledge, my experience."

Whenever someone says, "God has become my experience," it means that he has transcended God,

because that which you know has become smaller than you. Your experience can never be greater than you.
Your experience is in your hand. It is something you have; it is your possession. But God can never be
possessed, Truth can never be possessed -- it is never in your hand. It is not something which has become a
memory, it is not something you are finished with, so it is not something you can define.

You can only define a thing when you have known it totally. Then you can define and believe it. Then

you can say, "This is this." But God remains indefinable. The moment never comes when you can say, "I
have known." God never becomes an experience in this sense. It is an explosion. but it is not an experience.
It is a knowing, but it is never knowledge. Remember the difference. A knowing is a growing thing; it goes
on growing. Knowledge is a dead stop. When you say, "I know," you have stopped. Now there will be no
growth, now there will be no flow, now there will be no unknown dimensions, now you will not be a
riverlike living experience.

Knowing means flowing -- a riverlike existence. You know, but not as knowledge; not as something

finished, complete, dead in your hand. You know as an opening -- a constant opening to the greater, a
constant opening to the sea, a constant opening to the transcending. Knowing is a constant opening,
knowledge is a closing. So those who have felt that knowledge becomes dead have not called that
experience "God". They have not given any name to it. Any name means knowledge. When you can give a
name to a certain experience, it means you have known it totally, completely. Now you can encircle it. Now
you can give it a word. A word means a limitation. So the Indian wisdom says: He is That. "That" is not a
word -- it is an indication.

Ludwig Wittgenstein has said somewhere that there are certain things which cannot be said but which

can be shown. You cannot say, but you can show, you can indicate. This word "That" is an indication. It is
just a finger pointing to the beyond. It is not a word; it gives no negation. It doesn't show that you have
known -- it shows that you have felt.

Knowledge has a limitation, but feeling is unlimited. And when we say "That", we say many things

more. One: it is far away. "This" means near, here. We know it: it is in our capacity to know it. "That"
means far away -- very far away. In one sense, That is very far away; in another sense it is nearer than the
near -- but it depends from where you start. We are sitting here. The nearest point is just where you are
sitting: anything compared to it is away from you. But you can go and travel the whole earth and can come
back to your own point -- then it will be the most distant point. So it depends.

I have heard: Mulla Nasrudin was sitting just outside his village, and someone, a stranger, was asking

the way to Mulla's village and how far it was. So Mulla said, "It depends."

The stranger couldn't understand. He said, "What do you mean 'it depends'?"
The Mulla said, "If you keep on going the way you are going, if you keep on following the direction you

have taken, then my village is very far away. You will have to go around the whole earth, because you
have-left the village just behind. But if you can turn back, if you are ready to have an about-turn, then the
village is just the nearest thing."

So it depends on where we are -- on the very point where we are, on the very point of consciousness

where we are just now. If we can see that point and penetrate that point, then this is very far away and That
is the nearest thing. But if we cannot look at the center where we are and we follow the direction of the eyes
and the senses, then this is near and That is the most faraway thing. It depends. But in both the ways That
transcends this. If you go in, if you reach to the center of your being, then again you transcend this that

surrounds you, and That is achieved. Or, if you go out, then you will have to go on a very long journey, an
infinite journey, and you can touch That only when this ends.

That's why science is a long journey, very long. Eddington, only in his last days, and Einstein also in his

last days, could feel that they had come to a very mysterious glimpse of the universe. Eddington is reported
to have said, "When I started my probe into Existence, I thought this whole Existence to be a big
mechanical thing -- a big mechanical existence, a big machine. But the more I penetrated it, the less it
looked like a machine. And now that J have gone deeper and further away from my starting point, I can say
it looks more like a thought than like a machine -- more like a thought."

This glimpse is through science: science is a probe into this. When you go on probing, a moment comes

when the this is exhausted -- but it is a very long journey. Only a mind like Eddington can have this
glimpse. Ordinary scientists will never be able to come to this glimpse. Only a mind like Einstein can come
to this -- the ending of this and the glimpse of That.

Einstein has said, "The universe now is a mystery to me, not a mathematical problem." But this

conclusion through mathematics is a very long journey -- a very long journey! Through mathematical
calculations he has come to a point where everything drops. Your mathematics becomes just absurd; your
calculations are of no use. Your reason itself in this encounter just drops; you cannot think any more.
Thinking becomes impossible because thought has a field. It can work only in a particular scheme, in a
particular pattern.

For example, why could Einstein come to feel mystery through mathematics? Mathematics is a logical

dimension. It works through a particular logical pattern. For example, in mathematics A is A and B is B, and
A can never be B. Mm? This is a logical pattern. If A can be B and B can be A, then it will be a poetry, not
mathematics. Mathematics needs clear lines, divisions -- no fluidity. If A can flow and become B, then
mathematics is impossible. A must be A and must remain A; B must be B and must remain B. Only then can
mathematics work. Divisions must be clear-cut. There should be no mixing and no confusion.

Einstein worked with mathematics, but beyond a certain point difficulties were felt. And for these fifty

years, physics has felt such deep difficulties as never before. For example, fifty years ago, matter was
matter, A was A; energy was energy, B was B. But during these fifty years, the more physics penetrated, the
divisions began to be a confusing thing -- and suddenly matter disappeared completely. It was found
nowhere. Rather, on the contrary, it was found that this division between energy and matter was just false.
Matter is energy. Then the whole mathematics, the whole logic which depended on the division, just
dropped.

What to do with this non-mathematical penetration of Existence? Now matter is no more! And

remember, when matter is no more, your definitions of energy cannot remain the same, because in the old
days energy meant that which is not matter. Now matter is no more, so what is energy? You might have
heard the definition: "Mind is not matter, matter is not mind". But now there is no matter, so what is the
definition of mind?

When matter dropped, suddenly mind dropped also. There was only energy, manifestations of the same

energy, with no division. And a fluidity entered into physics. Now A is not certainly A. The deeper you go
into A, you find B there. The deeper you go into matter, There is energy. And many other things, many
strange things, exploded.

We know that a particle is a particle and never a wave, that a wave is a wave and never a particle. But

Einstein had to face a new, strange mystery. In the deeper realms of Existence, a particle can behave like a
wave sometimes -- very unpredictable -- and a wave can behave like a particle. It may be difficult, so it is
good to understand it through geometry.

We know that a point is never a line. How can a point be a line? A line needs many points in succession.

A point can never be a line! A line means many points in succession, so a single point cannot behave like a
line, and a line cannot behave like a point -- but they do! They do -- not in geometry because geometry is
manmade, but in Existence they do. Sometimes a point behaves like a line and a line behaves like a point, so
what to do? Then how to define what a point is and what a line is? Then definition becomes impossible,
because a point can behave like a line. And when definition becomes impossible, the two things then are not
two. Rather, Einstein says, "It is better to say 'X'. Don't say 'line', don't say 'point', because they are
irrelevant and meaningless. Say X exists. X sometimes behaves likes a point and sometimes behaves like a
line." This X is again That. X means now you are not using a word: X means That.

If you say "point", it means "this; if you say "line", it means "this". If you say X, the unknown has

penetrated. When you use X, you arc saying it is a mystery not a mathematics. So if you go deep you will

come to That, but this happens only with a rare mind like Einstein. Mm? It is a very long journey In
millennia, one or two persons can come to That through this, because you are going around the earth to
come to your own point.

Religion says that there is no journey. There is no journey -- you can find it just here and now. You can

be That without going anywhere. That is here. If you miss the inside center, then you are in the this. If you
can transcend this, then you will be again in That. So That is beyond this -- either in or out. The beyond
means the That, and not using any particular name means it is a mystery.

Metaphysics is not mathematics, it is not logic. It is a mystery. So it will be good to understand what is

meant by "mystery". It means your categories, your ordinary categories of thinking, will not do. If you go
on thinking in your ordinary categories, you will go on moving around and around and around, but you will
never reach the point. About and about you will move, but you will never reach the point. Logical
categories are circular. You go on, you do much, you walk much, but you never reach.

The center is not on the periphery, otherwise you would have reached. If you go on round and round in a

circle, you can never reach the center. If you are walking slowly, you may think, "Because I am walking
slowly, that's why I am not reaching." You can run; still you will not reach. You can go on using any speed,
but speed is irrelevant -- you will not reach. The more speed, the more dizzy you will become, but you will
not reach because the center is not on the circle. It is in the circle, not on the circle. You will have to leave
the circle completely. You will have to drop from the periphery to the center.

Logical categories are circular. Through logic you never reach a new truth -- never! Whatsoever is

implied in the premises becomes apparent, but you never reach a truth. Through logic you can never come
to a new experience. It is circular. The conclusion is always there. It becomes apparent, it was latent -- that
is the difference. But through logic you never come to realize a new phenomenon, and through logic you
never come to the unknowable. The mystery can never be reached through logic because logic is
anti-mystery. Logic divides and logic depends on clear-cut, solid divisions -- and reality is fluid.

For example, you say a certain man is a very kind person; but this is a statement. And in the meantime,

while you have been making this statement, the person who was kind may now not have been so, he may
have changed. You say, "I love someone." This is a statement. But in the very statement your love may have
disappeared. In this moment you are loving, in the next moment you are angry. In this moment you are kind,
in the next moment you are cruel.

In the dictionary kindness never becomes cruelty -- never. But in reality it goes on moving: kindness

becomes cruelty, cruelty becomes kindness; love becomes hate, hate becomes love. In reality, things move;
in dictionaries they are static. Reality is dynamic and moving. You cannot fix it. You cannot say, "Stay
here!" And not only do things change -- they go on to touch their very contradictions, they move to the very
extreme, the other extreme. Love can become hate. It is not a simple change -- it is a dialectical change. The
diametrically opposite has come into existence. A friend can become a foe, but the word "friend" can never
become the word "foe". How can it become? Words are fixed.

Reason works with fixed entities and life is never fixed. You say, "This is God," but the God may have

changed into the Devil. You cannot label. In reality, labelling is futile, because while you are labelling a
thing it is changing; that time is enough to change it. But logic, reason, mind, cannot work without labelling.

We can understand how love can become hate, but even more fixed categories can change. You say,

"This person is man, male; that person is female, woman." Again, these are categories, labellings. In reality
this is not so. When I say that in reality this is not so, I mean you may be male in the morning and female in
the evening. It depends. There are moods when you are female and there are moods when you are male. And
now modern psychology says man is bisexual. Logic will never believe it. No one is man and no one is
woman -- everyone is both. The difference is only of degrees; it is never of quality, it is only of quantity.
And degrees go on changing.

Reality cannot be labelled, nothing can be labelled. But we have to label. It is a necessity; mind cannot

function without it. Without labelling mind cannot function, so mind goes on labelling things. This labelled
world is known as "this" -- the world that is created by labelling. And the world that exists beyond these
labels is That -- the unlabelled, the undefined, the uncharted.

You have a name -- mm? -- this is a labelling, so your name belongs to "this". You are a man or a

woman. This is labelling, so your being a man or a woman belongs to "this". If you are finished with your
labelling, then there is no That. But if you feel that you exist beyond the label; if you feel that your labelling
is just on the periphery and there is a center which remains unlabelled, untouched; if you feel that even this
being male or female is a labelling, this being young or old is a labelling, this being beautiful or ugly is a

labelling, this being healthy or ill is a labelling -- if you can feel something within you which is unlabelled,
you have touched the realm of That.

So "this" is the labelled world and That is the unlabelled. "This" is the realm of the mind -- categories,

thinking, logic, mathematics, calculation -- That is a mystery. If you try to reach it through logic you cannot
reach, because logic is anti-mystery. When I say logic is anti-mystery I mean that logic cannot function in a
mysterious world. It can function only in a fixed, dead, labelled world.

Alice went to Wonderland, and she was just confused. A horse was coming and suddenly the horse

changed into a cow, just as it happens in dream. You never object in dream. Have you ever objected? You
see something, and suddenly it changes without any cause. The causality doesn't exist in the dreamworld. A
horse can become a cow, and you never ask why or how this has happened. No one asks in dreams; you
cannot ask. If you ask, you will come out of the dream, the sleep will be broken. But the doubt never arises.

Why? If you pass through the street and suddenly a horse becomes a cow, a dog becomes a man, your

wife or your husband suddenly becomes a dog, you will not be able to take it. It will be impossible for the
mind. But in the dream you take it with no hesitation at all, with no doubt, with no questioning. Why? In the
dream the logical categories are not functioning. The "why" is absent, the doubt is absent, the labelled world
is absent. So, really, a horse can become a cow and there is no questioning. The horse can flow and become
a cow. It is a fluid world.

So in that Wonderland, Alice was just confused. Everything flows into everything else -- anything. So

she asked the Queen, "What is this? Why are things changing? And how can I function here? -- because
nothing can be taken for granted, nothing! Anything can be anything, and in any moment it can change.
Nothing can be taken for granted, so how am I to function here?"

The Queen said, "This is an alive world. It is not dead. You are coming from a dead world; that's why

you feel the difficulty. Things are alive here, A can become B. There are no fixed categories, no categories
at all. Everything is just fluid and flows into everything else. This is an alive world -- you are coming from a
dead world."

We live in a dead world. That dead world is the "this". If you can feel the live current beyond this dead

world, then you have felt That. But the rishis have not given any name to it -- mm?because to give it a name
is again to label it. If you call it "God" you have labelled it, so God becomes part of "this".

Shankara has said that even God is part of MAYA -- illusion. Mm? This is inconceivable for a Christian

or a Jewish mind, because God means the Supreme Reality. But for the Hindu, God has never been the
Supreme Reality -- because the Supreme cannot be named! The moment you name it, it is not the Supreme.
You name it, and it becomes part of "this". Hindus have struggled and tried to indicate, but never to define.

"That" is an indication. If you say it is God, you have defined it. It has come within the categories.

That's why Buddha remained silent. He would not even use the word "That", because he said that if you use
"That" it refers to "this". Even to use "That" means a reference to "this", and the Ultimate Reality cannot be
in reference to anything. If we say it is light, it refers to darkness, It may not be darkness, but it refers to
darkness, it is related to darkness. It has meaning only in reference to darkness, so it is not beyond. So
Buddha remained silent. He would not even say "That".

"That" is the last word to be used. But Buddha felt that even to use "That" is not good, so he would deny

"this", he would destroy "this", but never assert the word "That". He would insist, "Destroy this, and then..."
And then what? But he would remain silent. Beyond "then", he would remain silent. He would say,
"Destroy this, and then..." Then something happens. But then no one knows what happens. Then even a
Buddha doesn't know. He used to say: "Then even a Buddha doesn't know what happens, because there is
no Buddha to know. Destroy this; don't ask about That."

He would come into a new place, and his bhikkhus would go around the village to declare: "There are

eleven questions Buddha is not going to answer, so please don't ask them." The first was, "Don't ask about
'That'. Ask about 'this', because this is answerable. Ask about this and he will answer. Don't ask about That."

I remember one sufi mystic, Bayazid. He was saying one day that nothing can be said about That. His

Master, his Guru, hearing this just went out of the room. His Master was a very old man, illiterate -- mm? --
Bayazid was a very literate man. So, many disciples who were sitting there thought that the old man had
gone out because he could not understand such deep things. Bayazid stopped that very moment, ran after the
Teacher and asked him, "Have I done something wrong? Have I said something wrong?"

The Teacher said, "Yes! Even to say that nothing can be said about That is to say something. You have

said something -- I cannot tolerate it."

There is a story about Marpa, the Tibetan mystic. Someone had come to ask him, "Tell me something

about That. But I have heard," the questioner said, "that nothing can be said, words cannot be used,
language is futile. So tell me something about That in such a way that it is without words."

Marpa laughed and he said, "I will tell you -- but ask without words. Ask something about That without

words, and I will answer you."

So the questioner said, "How can I ask without words?"
So Marpa said, "That is your problem, not mine. You go and find out! That is your problem, not mine.

Mine begins when I am to answer, so first go and find out."

It was serious; it was not a joke. The person who had come to ask was serious about it. He went and he

thought and he tried. In every way he meditated: "How to ask without words? Really, Marpa is right! If you
demand an answer without words you must ask without words." He meditated, he contemplated, he thought
about it, but it is impossible. How to ask it without words? Years passed, and because of this constant
inquiry -- how to ask without words? -- thoughts dropped. The man became empty.

Suddenly, one day, Marpa is at his door, knocking. The man opens the door. Marpa is there laughing,

smiling. Marpa says, "You have asked and I have answered." And they both laugh. And from that day on,
that person, the inquirer, follows Marpa as a shadow, laughing continuously. From village to village Marpa
moves, and the man follows him like a shadow, laughing. So everybody who meets them asks, "Why is this
man laughing?"

Marpa says, "He has asked without words and I have answered without words -- hence, the laughter."
Logical categories will not do because logic exists in thinking and mystery exists in non-thinking. You

come in contact with mystery when there is no thought. You come in contact with mystery, all the bridges
are destroyed, all the gaps are destroyed, when there is no thought. So from another dimension, "this" means
the world of thinking and "That" means the world of no-thought. If you can be in a state of no-thought, you
are in That. If you are in thinking, you are in this. When you are in thinking you are not in Being. When you
are in thinking you are on a journey away from yourself. The deeper you go in thought, the further away
you are from yourself. So a thinker is never a knower -- never! A thinker is just dreaming.

You might have seen Rodin's sculpture known as "The Thinker". The man is sitting and brooding. His

hand is on his head; the head is lowered. This is one concept, the Western concept, of a thinker. The man is
very anxious, tense, worried; his every nerve is tense. He is thinking; a very arduous effort is being made
somewhere inside. He is thinking! His every muscle, his every nerve is tense. He has gone far away.

There is another picture -- a Zen picture, a Chinese picture -- of the thinker. It is good to put them side

by side and then meditate. The Chinese picture of the thinker is relaxed; nothing is going on. And the
caption in Chinese reads: "He is a thinker because he is not thinking at all." There are no thoughts. Simply
the consciousness has remained -- no problem, no struggle inside. He is not thinking -- he is the thinker!
Only the thinker has remained, no thinking. In Rodin's sculpture, there are thoughts, there is thinking. but
the thinker is not, the center is not -- only the circumference. Much is there as work, effort, but the center is
clouded.

In the Chinese picture of the thinker, only the center is -- centered, relaxed in itself, no journey. The

consciousness has not gone anywhere. It is relaxing in itself. In Rodin's concept of thinking you will touch
the this, and in the Chinese Zen painting of the thinker you will touch the That. If you are thinking, then
knowing is not possible because you can do either thinking or knowing. The mind cannot do both
simultaneously. Either you can think or you can know. It is just like you can either run or you can stand;
you cannot do both. If someone says, "I am standing while running," he is saying the same absurd thing as
we go on thinking and saying: "I am knowing while thinking."

You cannot know, because knowing is a standing and thinking is a running from one thought to another.

It is a process. You go on running and jumping and running and jumping. If you stand still inside, no
running... a centering, just sitting. In Japan they call it "Za-zen". It means just sitting. The Japanese word for
meditation is "Za-zen". It means just sitting, doing nothing -- not even meditation, because if you are
meditating you are doing something. The Japanese say that even if you are doing meditation you are still
doing something, you are running. Don't even meditate -- just be. Don't do anything. Just be! If you can be
without any doing, you drop into That, because thinking is this -- the thought process, the labelling, the
logic.

Thinking is a process of ignorance. You think because you don't know. If you know, there is no need to

think. You think because you don't know -- it is a groping in the dark. But thinking is a very tense process --
most tense! And the more you are tense inside, the less you are in contact with the center. Relaxed, fall into
yourself. Relaxed, just be. Relaxed, don't go anywhere. Remain in yourself -- suddenly you are in That.

This sutra says:

THE FEELING OF THAT EVERYWHERE IS THE ONLY FRAGRANCE.

The only Divine fragrance -- the feeling of That everywhere! But how can you feel it everywhere if you

have not felt it inside? If you have not felt it in yourself, how can you feel it everywhere? The feeling must
come first in your center; then it goes out in waves all around you, everywhere. Once you have known that
fragrance inside, you suddenly become aware it is everywhere. Then this this is just an appearance and That
is hidden everywhere. So this is to be understood: unless you know it inside, you cannot know it outside;
unless you come to That within, you cannot come to it without. You have to drop into That inside first,
otherwise you can create a very illusory phenomenon.

Many religious persons are doing that. Without knowing the inside you can go on thinking that That is

everywhere -- in the trees, in the houses, in the sky, in the stars, in the sun -- everywhere. You can go on
thinking -- I insist, thinking -- you can go on thinking That is everywhere, and you can come to a false
feeling through constantly thinking that it is there everywhere. This is an imposition, a projection, and mind
is capable of it. It can project. But projection will not lead to you That. Mm? -- you are dreaming about that
-- not knowing it, not feeling it, not living it. So you can, by constant repetition, autohypnotize yourself that
That is everywhere. You can go on repeating that you are feeling it in every stone.

Try it! It is a good experiment. Try for twenty-one days continuously to feel That, the Divine, the God,

everywhere -- in every leaf, in every stone, everywhere. Whatsoever comes to your mind, remember it is
That continuously for three weeks, and you will be able to create a certain illusion around you. You will be
in a very high euphoria just like with LSD or mescaline or marijuana. By constant repetition of a certain
feeling, you can project it without any chemical drugs. The mind creates its own chemical drugs.

But it is arduous; through drugs it is very easy. But the same is the process. When you take a pill and

instant heaven comes to you, what does it mean? It means only that the chemical drug lowers down all your
defense measures, breaks down your logic, your rational thinking. You are in a waking dream. The logic has
stopped -- not as an achievement, but just as a chemical enforcement. You are in a waking dream; with LSD
you are in a waking dream.

Timothy Leary has written a book comparing Tibetan mystics with LSD-takers, and he says the same is

the experience. He says about Marpa and Milarepa, or you could say Kabir and Ekhardt, Huang Po or
Hui-Hai, or Bayazid and Rabiya, that whatsoever they have known or have come to know is just similar to
LSD experiences. And Timothy Leary is right in a way -- but still fundamentally wrong. He is right in a way
because the experiences are similar, but not the same.

When you take some chemical drug which lowers down the defense mechanism of the mind, the logic,

the reason, you are in the same state as in a dream in the night. The difference is only that now you are in a
waking dream. You are awake and still dreaming, so if a horse becomes a cow there is no problem. And this
waking dream gives the whole reality a new rainbow colour. Everything becomes fresh. All the labels have
dropped; your dream has spread all over. Now, whatsoever is happening inside chemically is being
projected outside.

The colours that you see outside arc a projection of your inside mind. Now your dreams are projected

everywhere. The whole world has become a screen and you are a projector now: you project everything. So
whatsoever is inside you will now be projected. So LSD will not give the same experiences to all. A poet
will have a very poetic experierence, but a murderer cannot have the same experience. Someone can have
heaven instantly, and someone may drop into hell. So whatsoever is inside will now be projected outside.

The same can be done through constant repetition. If you go on constantly repeating a certain feeling,

you can project it. You can begin to live in this world as if this world has become dead. But unless you have
known it inside, it is a false phenomenon. Any day you stop your repetition, and the hypnosis will go down.
You can go on in this process for lives together. It is self-perpetuated because it is so pleasant.

So remember this: you are not to project. You are to know it inside, not to project it outside. For

projection thinking will be needed, and for realization no-thinking will be needed. For projection you will
need a certain concept to be enforced on reality. It is a rape of reality. And you can autohypnotize yourself,
but this is a dream existence. The real thing to be done is to come to a stop of inside brooding and thinking.
The clouds must be thrown. Your inner center must come to a very uncloudy sky. Your inner center must be

there without any action, and thinking is the action.

If every thought stops... but that you can do even by becoming totally unconscious. If you become

unconscious, then it is of no use. You have fallen into deep sleep. In projecting outside you have fallen into
a waking dream. You can stop every thought inside and be unconscious -- you have fallen into deep sleep. It
will not do.

A third thing has to be done -- no thinking and no unconsciousness. This is the basic formula: no

thinking and no unconsciousness. Conscious totally with no thoughts, and you come not only to know That
but to be That. You are one with it. And once tasted, the taste never leaves you. Once felt, it never leaves
you because you are transformed, you are not the same. And when you have known it, felt it inside, then
open your eyes and it is everywhere. Now everything becomes just a mirror. You need not think about it;
there is no need. You need not remember that it is there -- it is there! That felt inside is felt everywhere.

Really, the inside and outside drop. Then your inside is the outside. Then the whole distinction between

the within and without is meaningless. Once you have known That, the infinite inside, then it is the same
outside. Then a very different feeling comes. Then it is not that you are inside and you are not outside --
then you are everywhere. The inside and the outside are just two poles of one reality. You are spread
between the two. You are the reality -- the That. One pole was known as inside previously; another pole was
known as outside. Now you are spread between the two. They are both your poles.

This knowing inside is authentic religion. And this sutra says: "The feeling of That everywhere is

gandha, the only fragrance." If one is to know, if one is to live in that divine fragrance, in that bliss, this is
the path. Why does the rishi say that the feeling of That everywhere is the fragrance? If you go to worship,
you take some flowers with you. This is a symbolic expression. Ordinary flowers will not do for worship.
Take this fragrance with you -- this feeling of That everywhere. Then only will your worship be authentic;
otherwise it is just a false show. Ordinary flowers will not do.

Take this fragrance with you when you are going to worship. But then there is no going because then

there is no temple. Then everything has become a temple. If you feel That everywhere, then where is the
temple? Then where is the Mecca and where is Kashi? Then He is everywhere. Then the whole Existence
becomes a temple. If you feel That everywhere, then this becomes a temple. Take this fragrance with you.

But, really, the rishi is very deep, even in his symbology. He will not say "flowers", he says "fragrance"

-- because flowers again are part of this fragrance, part of That. A flower is born and it dies; a fragrance is
forever. You may know, you may not know it. A flower is a material manifestation; a fragrance is a spiritual
part. A flower you can have in your hand, but you cannot have fragrance in your hand. A flower can be
purchased, but never the fragrance. A flower is a limitation, but a fragrance is simply the unlimited. A
flower is somewhere, but the fragrance goes everywhere. You cannot say it is here; you cannot say it is
there. It is everywhere. It goes on, it goes on.

So that's why the rishi says not "flowers", but "fragrance". Take this fragrance with you, and only then

will you enter the real temple -- because the reality of the temple doesn't depend on the temple, it depends
on you. If you are authentic, the temple becomes authentic. Then any temple or any place will do; it makes
no difference.

I have heard about Hassan. He worshipped in a mosque for seventy years continuously. The whole

village became so acquainted with Hassan worshipping in the mosque for seventy years. Virtually, the
mosque and the worshipper became one. No one could conceive of Hassan without the mosque; no one
could conceive of the mosque without Hassan. He was there five times every day. He didn't move from his
village, never -- because if he had moved anywhere and there was no mosque, where would he do his
prayer? And five times, the whole day, he was engaged in prayer. Even if sometimes he was ill, he would
not miss -- he would come.

One morning when he was not found in the mosque, all the worshippers thought that the only thing

possible was that Hassan was dead; there was no other possibility. He had never missed! For years and
years, for five prayers the whole day Hassan was there in the mosque. So the whole congregation went to
Hassan's hut. They thought it was certain he was dead; otherwise nothing could prevent him. But Hassan
was not dead. That old man was sitting under a tree.

The people just couldn't understand. They said, "What are you doing? Have you become a heretic in

your old age? Have you stopped worshipping? Why didn't you come? We thought you were dead, but you
are alive. It would not have been so strange if we had found you dead, but you are alive. This is strange, and
we are unable to understand."

Hassan said, "I was coming continuously to the mosque because I didn't know where His temple is. But

now I have come to know. Now His temple is everywhere, and I need not go now. His temple has come
here. See! He is here -- everywhere."

But the villagers couldn't see. They thought he might have gone mad.
The authenticity of the temple, the reality of the temple, depends on you. A false worshipper cannot find

a real temple. Wheresoever he moves, he moves in his own falsity. All these temples have become false
because of false worshippers. Wherever they move, they move with their falsity.

The rishi says, "The feeling of That everywhere is the only fragrance." Go to Him, go to His feet, with

this fragrance. But then there is no going. Then wherever you are, you are in His presence. If the fragrance
is inside, then the presence is outside. If you are filled with the feeling of That, then there is no seeking.

Bokuju, a Zen Master, has said that sansar is Nirvana -- this world is the Ultimate. When he said this for

the first time, his own disciples became disturbed and they said, "What are you saying? This world, sansar,
is Nirvana! This world is the Ultimate! This world is Brahma! What are you saying?"

Bokuju said, "When I didn't know, when I was ignorant, there was a division. But when I came to

realize That, the division disappeared -- now everything is That."

So the last thing: this and That is a division for the ignorant and of the ignorant. You know only this,

and That is just a concept. When you come to know That, this becomes only a day-to-day concept, a utility.
If you only know this, then That is just a concept, a metaphysical concept. If you come to know That, then
this disappears. Knowing That does not mean that the world disappears; it will remain. But for you it will
not be this -- it will become That.

Mohammed's disciple Ali was beaten by someone; he became unconscious. He was beaten so much that

he became unconscious. The person who had attacked him escaped. When others came, the attacker was not
found there. Ali was found Lying unconscious on the street. So they served him; someone brought water
and they all did something to help him. Then Ali became conscious. Someone was fanning him, someone
was sitting just by his side stroking his head. The person who was sitting by his side asked, "Have you
become conscious? Can you recognize this man who is fanning you?" He was asking to know whether Ali
had become conscious or not.

Ali said, "How can I not recognize Him? I know He is the same who was beating me."
The man who asked felt that he was still unconscious, because that man had escaped. And how can that

man who was beating him serve him now to make him conscious? He was fanning him, the man said, "Ali,
you seem to be still unconscious, confused. This is not that man."

Ali said, "How can He not be That? I cannot see anything except That. So when He was beating me I

knew who He was, and now that He is serving me I know who He is -- but they are both the same!"

This is a non-dualistic concept, feeling. When you know That, this disappears; when you know this,

That remains just a concept somewhere. But start from yourself Don't go to find it out anywhere else;
otherwise the journey will be very long. And you may reach, you may not reach. Take a total about-turn --
seek it in your own center.

The Ultimate Alchemy, Vol 1

Chapter #14

Chapter title: Facing the Reality

2 June 1972 pm in

Archive code: 7206025

ShortTitle: ULTAL114

Audio:

Yes

Video:

No

OSHO, YOU SAID LAST NIGHT THAT TO REALIZE THE THAT, THE TRANSCENDENTAL TRUTH
EVERYWHERE, ONE MUST FIRST REALIZE IT AT ONE'S OWN CENTER OF BEING. THEN YOU SAID
THAT A CENTERING FOR THIS IS NEEDED. IS THIS CENTERING THE SAME AS THAT OF
GURDJIEFF'S CRYSTALLIZATION?
PLEASE TELL US HOW THIS CENTERING OR CRYSTALLIZATION IS DIFFERENT FROM
STRENGTHENING ONE'S OWN EGO, AND HOW DOES IT LEAD TO THE TRANSCENDENTAL TRUTH,
THE THAT?

MAN IS born with a Self, but not with an ego. Ego is a social construct, a later growth. Ego cannot exist

without relationship. You can exist, the Self can exist, but the ego cannot exist in itself. It is a by-product of
being related to others. So ego exists between "I and thou". It is a relata.

The child is born with a Self but not with an ego. The child develops the ego. As he becomes more and

more social and related, ego develops. This ego is just on your periphery where you are related with others
-- just on the boundary of your being. So ego is the periphery of your being, and Self is the center. The child
is born with a Self, but unaware. He is a Self, but he is not conscious of the Self.

The first awareness of the child comes with his ego. He becomes aware of the "I", not of the Self.

Really, he becomes aware first of the "thou". The child becomes aware first of his mother. Then,
reflectively, he becomes aware of himself. First he becomes aware of objects around him. Then, by and by,
he begins to feel that he is separate. This feeling of separation gives the feeling of ego, and because the child
first becomes aware of the ego, ego becomes a covering on the Self.

Then ego goes on growing, because the society needs you as an ego, not as a Self. The Self is irrelevant

for the society; your periphery is meaningful. And there are many problems. The ego can be taught and the
ego can be made docile and the ego can be forced to be obedient. The ego can be made to adjust, but not the
Self. The Self cannot be taught, the Self cannot be forced. The Self is intrinsically rebellious, individual. It
cannot be made a part of society.

So the society is not interested in your Self. The society is interested in your ego -- because something

can be done with the ego, and nothing can be done with the Self. So the society helps to strengthen the ego,
and you go on living around your ego. The more you grow, the more you become social, educated, cultured,
civilized, the more polished an ego you have. Then you begin to function from the ego, not from the Self,
because you are not aware of it at all.

So your essence goes on into the unconscious, into inner darkness, and a false construct, a social

construct -- the ego -- becomes your center. Now you identify yourself with your ego -- with your name,
with your education, with your family, with your religion, with your country. These are all just part of your
ego, not of your Self, because the Self doesn't belong to your parents, the Self doesn't belong to your
country, the Self doesn't belong to any religion, the Self doesn't even belong to your self. It doesn't belong!
The Self is a freedom. It is total freedom! It exists in its own right. It doesn't belong to anything else, it
doesn't depend on anything else. It is!

But the ego belongs. It exists in a pattern. So if you are left alone for a long period, your ego will, by

and by, subside. By and by, you will feel that your ego is being starved -- because the ego needs constant
help from others. It needs a constant energy, food from others. That's why love gives you a very heightened
feeling of ego -- because in love the other gives you significance, meaning. You become, for the first time,
important. And in love, lovers help each other mutually. Love is a very subtle food for ego. The ultimate
vitamin for the ego is love.

That's why Mahavir and Buddha and Mohammed and Christ, they all escaped from society. It was not

really escaping from society: they all escaped into loneliness. It was not against society. Basically, it was to
know whether their egos could exist outside society. And Mahavir, continUously for twelve years, was in
loneliness just to dissolve this ego, this social construct. He chose to be without a center for the time being
so that a real center, the authentic center, could come up.

One has to be in a gap. Mm? That gap is bound to be a chaos, because you are centered in the ego and

the real center is hidden behind. Unless you dissolve this false center you cannot reach to the real center --
because there is no need. The ego goes on substituting for it.

The ego is enough as far as the world is concerned, society is concerned, relationship is concerned -- the

ego is enough. If you go on a lonely retreat in non-relationship, this ego cannot exist because it is a bridge
between I and thou. If the thou is not there, the bridge cannot exist on one bank. It needs two banks to be
there. That's why this retreating into loneliness became a deep sadhana.

But you can deceive yourself. If you go into loneliness and then begin to talk with God, then again you

will create your ego. You have created the thou, the other, again. So if you retreat into loneliness and then
pray to God and begin to talk with God, then you have created an imaginary thou. Now the ego can exist
again. So to be in loneliness means to be without thou -- no thou -- to be totally alone. Then this ego Cannot
exist. It will wither away, and you will be thrown into chaos because you will be, for a certain period,
without any center. This chaos has to be faced. Unless you face it you cannot be centered in your Self. You
have to pass through this.

Christian mystics have called this "The Dark Night of the Soul". Really, one just becomes mad, because

when you have no center you are mad. You have nowhere to function from; you have no unity now. You are
just fragments with no energy in them, with no center, with no focus. You are a crowd. You will be mad.
This madness has to be faced. This is the only courage the religious revolution needs: to be mad, to be
without a center. This is the real austerity: to pass through it without creating any false center again, to be so
honest that unless the real center comes up you are not going to create any center any more. You will wait.
This waiting may take any length of time. Nothing can be said.

Mahavir had to be in loneliness for twelve years; Mohammed was in it only for thirty days. It depends

on many things. I feel Mahavir had to wait for twelve years because he was the son of a great king. He must
have been deeply rooted in a false ego -- more than Mohammed. He-was no ordinary man. His ego was
greater than Mohammed's. Mohammed was just a poor man with no developed ego, uneducated, really
nobody. He was nobody! But Mahavir was somebody. He belonged to a great family. He had a great
heritage, a very polished ego, well educated, cultured. In every way he had a very crystallized ego. Twelve
years were needed to dissolve it.

Jesus was in loneliness for only forty days. He was also a poor man with nothing to help his ego. The

more civilization progresses, the more difficult it is -- because every progressive civilization is bound to
have a solidifying effect on the egos that constitute that civilization.

This passing through a chaos without any center, being a chaos, ultimately throws you down to the

center, the real center, to the Self. There are many methods for how to go through this chaos and how to
destroy this ego. But this is a foundational thing: to have the courage to be without a center for a certain
period of time.

You can do it by surrender. You can surrender yourself to someone, to the teacher. If the surrendering is

total, then you will be without ego. You can be a Self, but not an ego; that's why surrender is so difficult.
And the more egoistic an age, the more difficult surrender becomes. In surrender you give up yourself, you
become a shadow, you just follow the instructions. You don't think about them -- you are no more.

But whenever surrender is to be contemplated, one begins to think: "If I surrender, then I will not be an

individual."

This is absolutely incorrect. If you surrender, only then can you be an individual, because the ego is not

your individuality. It is false, it is just a facade. If you surrender the false, then you are bound to explode
into the real. And this is the beauty of surrender: you cannot surrender the Self -- mm? -- that is impossible;
you can only surrender the ego. You can give up only that which has been given tb you. You cannot give up
your Self; that is impossible. There is no possibility. How can you give up your Self? You can give up
something which has been put into you, which is a social penetration. Really, you can give only that which
doesn't belong to you, which you are not.

This will look contradictory, paradoxical. You can give only that which you are not. That which you are

you cannot give. So in surrender you give up whatsoever you know yourself to be. Then only the Self
remains, which you really are and you cannot give up. When the false is thrown, the real is encountered.

So there are two ways, two basic ways: one is surrender. Mm? There are many methods of surrender,

but the foundation is always to surrender to someone. It is not significant to whom. It is absolutely
insignificant to whom you surrender. The real thing is surrendering. So sometimes it happens that the
teacher himself may not be a real one -- but if you surrender, you may come to the real Self.

Even a false teacher can be a help, even a dead teacher can be a help -- because the real thing is not to

whom you are surrendering; the real thing is that you are surrendering. The happening is in you. To whom it
is addressed is absolutely irrelevant. Krishna may be there or he may not be there; Buddha may be a
historical person or he may not be; Jesus may just be a myth -- it makes no difference. If you can surrender

to Jesus, whether Jesus was ever there or not, the thing will happen to you. It is the surrendering that is
meaningful.

So one way, one basic way, is surrender. Another is absolute will. Don't surrender, but then be

absolutely yourself. I said that when you surrender, the Self cannot be surrendered. Whatsoever you
surrender is bound to be the ego, the false, the PERSONA -- not the essence. Another basic path is to be
yourself totally, don't surrender -- but then be a will.

Again, the ego has no will; it cannot have. The ego is absolutely will-less because a false entity cannot

have the quality of will. Will belongs to the real. You are absolutely will-less. In the morning you decide
something; in the afternoon you yourself cancel it. When you are deciding, at that very moment some part
of you is cancelling it. You say, "I love." Go deep, and somewhere in the corner hate is hiding -- in that very
moment. You decide, "I am going to do this," and in that very moment the contrary is there.

Will means nothing contrary in the mind. Will means one -- no duality. Ego cannot have any will. Ego

means many contradictory wills simultaneously. You are a crowd as far as ego is concerned, and it is bound
to be. It is natural, because as I said, ego is created by relationships. It is a by-product. You have many
relationships, so your ego is a construct of many relationships. It cannot be one; it is a crowd.

Really, look at it in this way: you have a part of your ego which was created with your mother -- a

fragment of your ego was created by you in relationship with your mother. Another part of your ego was
created by you in relationship with your father; another was created in relationship with your wife. Now the
fragment that was created by your wife cannot be the same as that which was created by your mother. They
will be antagonistic. They will fight inside you. It is not only that your wife and your mother will fight
outside. The ego part which is in you will also fight. It is not only that your father and your mother will fight
outside. They have created fragments of your ego and they will fight inside. So you have many fragments,
you have a crowd in the name of the ego -- a crowd. A constant fight, a conflict, is going on. You cannot
will anything.

Gurdjieff used to say, "You cannot will because you are not." Man is not because man is not one. You

are a crowd, and a crowd without any real unity. You have many faces, you have many wills. In a certain
moment, in a certain situation, one fragment is the master. Then you say something, then you decide to do
something. In that moment you feel that you have a will, but in the next moment that fragment has gone
down. Another fragment has come up -- and this fragment is not even aware of your decisions.

You are angry and then you decide, "I will not be angry again." The part that was angry has not decided

this. This is another part, and they both may not meet at any time in your life. The second part which says,
"I decide now not tb be angry," is not the part which was angry. And there is no meeting. The part which
was angry will again be angry tomorrow, and when that part is angry you will forget completely what you
had decided Again you will repent. The other part has come up again -- and this goes on.

Gurdjieff used to say that we are like a house, the master of which is either asleep or has gone

somewhere else. For years together the house has not known its master. There are many servants. The
servants have forgotten completely that there was ever any master. Either he is asleep or he has gone away.
For years together the servants have lived in the house without the master. Someone passes by the house;
some servant is outside and he asks the servant, "Who is the master?"
The servant says, "I am the master."

Another day the same man passes by the house and finds someone else there. He asks, "Who is the

master?"
The second servant says, "I am the master."

Every servant claims that he is the master, and nothing can be decided because the master is asleep or

has gone somewhere else. These servant-masters can decide something, but they cannot complete it. They
can Promise something, but they cannot fulfill it. They are not the masters at all.

This is the situation of the ego. It cannot will. So the second path is to create a will. If you create a will,

then the ego will disappear -- because only the Self can will. So if you begin to will, if you insist on willing,
then by and by you will go in. The ego cannot will; and if you insist on willing, the ego will disappear.

Surrender is one basic path -- the path of the bhaktas. tap, will, is the second basic path -- the path of the

warriors, fighters. Each path has many techniques, but the essential thing is this.

Gurdjieff used the second path -- the path of will. He called it crystallization. He said, "If you will, then

by and by you will crystallize into your center." The ego cannot exist with a willing consciousness -- it
cannot exist. So Gurdjieff used very deep methods for inner integration. He would say, for example, "Don't
sleep for seven days. Whatsoever happens, don't sleep." You can remain without food for seven days; it is

not so difficult. But to be without sleep for seven days is very difficult. To be without food for seven days is
not so difficult; a man can be alive without food for at least ninety days without any danger. But with sleep
it is difficult.

Food is a voluntary thing. You may eat, you may not eat. Sleep is not a voluntary thing: it is

non-voluntary. Either it comes or it doesn't. You cannot bring it; you cannot force yourself into sleep. You
can force yourself not to take food or to take more food; that is a voluntary thing. But sleep is a
non-voluntary phenomenon. You cannot force yourself. And when sleep comes you will not be able, with
your ego, to be awake. But you can insist. You can say, "Whatsoever happens, I will not sleep. I am ready to
die, but not to sleep."

Gurdjieff's chief disciple, Ouspensky, was dying, but he would not lie down. He continued walking. He

was dying, and he was aware that death was just about to come -- but he would not lie down. Physicians
insisted, persuaded, but he would not lie down. He said, "No, I am going to die walking. I am going to die
consciously." He used even death to create will, and he died walking. He was the first man in the whole
history of humanity who died walking -- consciously.

Consider, contemplate, what was happening inside of him. It is not simply sleep -- it is death. And he

was not ready to surrender even to death. Mm? This is an anti-surrender path. He was not ready even to
surrender to death. He continued to fight. He went on walking for three days and three nights. The body was
very ill, old. Those who were keeping watch over him couldn't follow him -- they had to sleep. So someone
would sleep and someone else would watch him. A group of twelve persons continued watching him, but
for three days continuously, night and day, he continued walking. He would not sit. He would not allow any
terms, any compromise with death. He died a crystallized man. He used death to create will.

You can fight with sleep, you can fight with food, you can fight with sex, you can fight with anything --

but then no compromise! Then no surrender! Then be absolute in it! But ego cannot be absolute in anything.
And if you insist on being absolute, ego will disappear and suddenly you will become aware of a different
center in yourself. The ego cannot will, so if you will the ego cannot exist.

So either surrender totally or win totally. Then you will understand that these seemingly contradictory

parts are not really contradictory, not so contradictory, because one thing is common: totality -- total
surrender or total will. The ego can never be total in anything. It is always fragmentary, divided. So be total,
in any way, and the ego evaporates. And when there is no ego, for the first time you become aware of your
real center.

I call it centering; Gurdjieff calls it crystallization. Words don't mean much. Through this centering you

become a being through this centering you are in Existence. Before this you are in society, not in Existence.
Before this you are part of a civilization, of a culture, of a language, of a religion, but not a part of
Existence. Before this you lived in a man-created world. Before this you belonged to "this". And once you
are centered, you belong to That which is beyond, which is not created, which is eternal. Then you come to
the source. You may call it God, you may call it soul, you may call it whatsoever you like. The Upanishads
call it "That" -- that which is unborn, that which is deathless, that which is.

This centering is possible, it is not impossible. It looks impossible, it appears impossible; it is impossible

for the ego -- not for you. It is impossible for the ego because ego cannot attain it. Rather, in attaining it ego
will die.

The old yoga scriptures say, "Hear whatsoever the Teacher says and follow it -- because he is your Self.

Whatsoever he is saying, it is your own inner voice." So they say the real Teacher, the real Guru, exists in
you. Outside you the Teacher is just a help to awaken the inner Teacher. So, really, surrendering to a
Teacher is surrendering to the Self. It is just like this: you come to a mirror, and for the first time you
become aware of your face -- through the mirror. The Teacher is just a mirror. If you surrender you become
aware of your own Self.

This is one way. The other is to find out your own will. And decide which is your way, because, as I

know, there are many people who just go on thinking: sometimes they think of surrender; sometimes they
think of will -- rather, this is their way. Whenever you talk to them about surrender, they think about will. If
you talk to them about will, they will think about surrender. This is how the fragments of the ego work.

If I say to you, "Surrender," then you will think, "How can I surrender? What will happen to my

individuality, my freedom?" And you have none really -- no individuality. no freedom. But then you
become afraid of losing something which you don't have. "How can I surrender?" Then if I say to you,
"Don't surrender! Create a will!" then you say, "I am so weak, how can I create a will? It is so difficult."
And both these teachings can have counterparts in your ego. And then you can go on wavering. That

wavering will never help you to come to your center.

Decide either this or that, and then follow it -- and then follow it absolutely, totally, because that totality

ultimately helps to destroy the false structure of the ego. And when the false center is no more, you will
come to know the real center. There will be a gap -- a gap of chaos. One has to face it. It is painful, but it is
a birth pain. One has to pass through it; it is a necessity. But when you come to the center, then you know
that you have paid nothing. What you have gained is invaluable, and whatsoever you have done is just
nothing. But before you attain it, your effort is very valuable.

And, lastly, you can be in a confusion and you can go on thinking that you have become centered or that

you are crystallized -- only because you have a crystallized ego. So what is the difference? How can you
judge whether you are centered in the ego or centered in the Self?

Three things to be remembered: one, if you are existing in the ego you can never be in silence -- never.

Then you are in a crowd, in the marketplace. Your ego is a market production. You can never be in silence.

Secondly, you can never find even an iota of happiness, because happiness happens only to the real

center, silence happens only to the real center. They are qualities of the real center. You need not make any
effort for them; they are just there. So if you are in the ego, your happiness will always be in the future --
never attained. always to be attained.

And, thirdly, your life motivation will be fear when you are in the ego. Whatsoever you do, your

motivation will be fear-oriented, you will be fear-oriented. If you love, you will love because of fear. If you
pray, you will pray because of fear. If you think of God, you will think because of fear. If you accumulate
wealth, you will accumulate because of fear. If you make friends... whatsoever you do, your basic motive
will be fear-oriented.

These three things. No silence will be possible because there is a crowd, a conflicting crowd of tensions

and tensions and conflicts. anxiety and anguish, but no silence, no happiness -- because happiness belongs
to the center, not to the ego. And there will be fearorientation because ego is constantly afraid of death --
because ego is just a construct. It is not a reality, so it is afraid of death. The Self is never afraid of death,
the Self has never known death. Death is impossible to the center -- to the real center. Deathlessness is the
very quality of it, its nature. So remember these three things.

Mind will be a constant tension, anguish, a longing for happiness, but no experience; and everything

will be trembling, fear-oriented. Your religion will be just a fear, your beliefs, your philosophies, just fear --
existing only to hide the fear, to escape the fear, to deceive yourself.

If you are in the real center, silence will be your nature -- not dependent on any situation. It is not that

the situation is such that you are silent. Whatsoever the situation, you will be silent. You cannot be
otherwise. Nothing can disturb you. Disturbance will be there but you will remain unaffected, untouched.
Nothing penetrates to your center, it cannot.

Silence, then, is not situational. It is not that the day is good, not that you are successful, not that you are

surrounded by friends -- no. It is not anything situational. Silence is there. Whatsoever the situation, silence
is there and happiness -- not in the future but here and now. And this happiness is not a happening. It is a
state. It is not that today you are happy -- you cannot be otherwise. You are happiness, and fear dissolves.
And with the dissolution of fear, the whole world that we have created around fear dissolves. You enter into
a world of no-fear. And when there is no fear, only then is freedom possible. Fear and freedom cannot exist
together. It is because of fear that we have created all our slaveries, all our bondages. Our imprisonment is
because of our fear.

So remember these three things. And once you have known your real center, you are not the same. The

old man has died and a new one is born. It is a new birth! When the child is born, only a body is born. Then
the ego is given by the society. You go on living with an ego and a body -- with no Self. Unless you
dissolve this ego and find the Self, your life is wasted. The body is given by your parents and the ego is
given by your society. Who are you? The body belongs to your parents, to heredity, to a long series, and the
ego belongs to the society. Who are you?

Gurdjieff used to say that you are not. You are just a construct. Unless you find out something which

has not come through the parents, not come through the society, not come at all to you; which you have
always been -- before your birth, after your death; that which you will be, which you have been, which you
are; unless you find that, you are not a centered being, you go on living on the periphery. This peripheral
existence has been called SANSAR -- the world, the this. This centered existence is called the Nirvana --
the That.

OSHO, HOW CAN ONE DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN A PROJECTED EXPERIENCE AND AN AUTHENTIC
FEELING?

"How can one differentiate between a projected experience and an authentic one?" It is difficult.

Because we have to speculate, that's why it is difficult. For example, how can you feel that you are touching
a real fire or just an imagined one? If you have not touched a real fire, it is very difficult to think about it, to
make any theoretical distinction. If you have touched a real fire, then it is not so difficult, then you know. A
projected experience is just a dream experience.

But we can think certain things. If you have projected something, you have to go on projecting it;

otherwise it will disappear. For example, if I project God and I say, "I see Him in the trees, I see Him in the
sky, I see Him everywhere," if it is a projected experience, just my projection, my thought imposed on
things, not a realization, but an idea, a theory imposed on things; if I project that I can see a tree as Divine --
then I have to help this projection constantly. If I drop repeating, if I forget even for a single moment, the
Divine will disappear and there will only be a tree.

In a projected experience you have to work for it continuously. You cannot have any leave, you cannot

be on any holiday. The so-called saints cannot go on any holiday. They are continuously at work. They are
working and working day and night. If you stop them for a single moment, the projected experience will
disappear.

Some friends brought to me a Sufi mystic. He was an old man, and he said that for thirty years he had

been experiencing God in everything. And it looked so, it appeared so! He was just ecstatic, dancing, his
eyes aflame with some unknown experience. So I asked that man, that mystic, "For thirty years you have
been experiencing -- is there any effort you still have to make?"

He said, "I have to constantly remember. Continuously, I have to remember. If I forget, then the whole

thing disappears." So I asked him to stop all effort for three days and be with me.

He was with me only one night. The next morning he said, "What have you done? You have destroyed

it! My thirty years' effort, and you have destroyed everything!" He began to weep. The same eyes which had
been aflame with something unknown, became ugly. Thirty years' effort -- and he said, "How, in what
unfortunate moment, did I come to you? What have you done? Why did you say to me to stop for three
days. Now how can I get into it again?"

This is the projected experience. So I told him, "It is better not to get into it again, because you have

wasted thirty years in a dream. You can waste thirty lives, but what are you gaining out of it?"

Authentic experience needs no effort. You need not maintain it. When it happens, it has happened. Now

you can forget everything. You need not go on maintaining it; there is no constant maintenance. It remains.
You forget it -- it is there. You don't look at it -- it is there. You sleep -- it is there. Now the tree cannot
become a tree again; now it can never again be a mere tree. Whether I remember or not, it is Divine.

So one thing: you need effort before the happening. Mm? -- remember, you need effort before the

happening. In both, in the authentic and the projected, effort is needed before the happening. In the
authentic experience there is no need after the happening, but in the projected experience there is a
continuous need, you have to go on making effort. It is just like in a cinema hall. The projector is running
continuously so that the screen is filled. If for a single moment the film is broken or the projector stops, the
whole thing disappears, the whole dream disappears, and there is just a plain screen and nothing else. You
have to run the projector continuously; then there is no screen, but a different world.

The same is the case if you have to run your mind continuously as a projector, or if you have to

remember that you are Divine, that everything is Divine, that all around is God: you have to project
continuously, with no gap. And if there is a gap, the whole thing disappears. Then it is a projection. It is not
authentic, it is not real.

If there is no need of this constant effort, then it is authentic, it is real. Then you can forget. The day you

can forget God, only then have you realized. If you still have to remember Him, it is a projection. The day
you can stop your meditation and there is no difference -- whether you meditate or not it is the same -- then
it is authentic. If you stop your meditation, if you stop your prayer, if you stop your effort and everything
changes and you feel that something is missing, then it is a projection, a projected feeling. Then it is an
addiction. Then someone is a drug addict and you are a prayer addict -- but it makes no difference.

One of the rarest and deepest treatises on yoga in India is the "Gherand Samhita" -- the most

foundational one. It says: "Unless you go beyond meditation, your meditations are of no use. Unless you go
beyond prayer, your prayers have not been heard. Unless you forget God completely, you are not one with
Him."

A Buddha will not talk about God; there is no need. Someone has said, "There has never been such a

godless man as Gautam the Buddha -- and yet such a godlike one." But he could be godless because he was
so godlike.

So remember one thing: no constant projecting. There is only one thing you can do. and that is to make

your mind thoughtless -- because thoughts are the projections. If you have thoughts, then they will be
projected. If you have no thoughts, it is just as if a projector machine is there without film. If no film is
there, it cannot project. Your mind is a projecting machine, and thoughts are the film. If thoughts run and
the machine is working then they will be projected, then the whole world is a screen. You go on projecting.

When you love someone, the person is just a screen: you project. When you hate someone, the person is

just a screen: you project. It is your thoughts that you go on projecting. The same face is beautiful today,
and the next day it becomes ugly -- the same face -- because your beauty, your ugliness, your feeling of
beauty, your feeling of ugliness, is not concerned with the face at all. The face is just a screen with your
thoughts projected on it.

No thoughts, no projections! That's why my insistence is that you come to a point of thoughtlessness, of

thoughtless awareness -- so that there will be no projection. Then you will see the world as it is, not as your
thoughts make it. If you can see the world as it is, you have come to the Divine.

Now you can feel the difference. The world is there: you project the Divine on it: it is a thought. You

say, "The world is Divine" -- it is a thought. You don't know. You have heard it, you have read it, someone
has said it to you. You wish it should be so, you want, you long that it should be so -- but you have not
known it. You don't know the world is Divine. You know the world as the world.

This concept that "the world is Divine" is a thought. Now you can project. Repeat it constantly, let it

remain in the mind constantly, let it be a constant thing between the world and you, then your mind will
project through this thought, and some day the world will begin to look Divine. Man? This is a projection:
you have thought of it as Divine, and now you feel it

The authentic realization is totally different. You don't know what the world is. You don't say that it is

Divine or not. You say, "I don't know." That's how a real, authentic seeker begins. He says, "I don't know."
The false, the projecting one, always says, "I know! The world is Divine. Everywhere there is God." The
real seeker will say, "I don't know. I know the tree, I know the stone -- I don't know what the inside of
Existence is. I am ignrant."

This feeling gives you a humility, a deep humbleness. And when you don't know, you cannot project --

because now you will not cooperate with any thought. Then drop all the thoughts and say, "I don't know."
Drop all the thoughts. Don't be attached to knowledge. By and by, be aware that no thoughts should be there
between you and the world. This is what meditation means -- a no-thought relationship. You are here; I look
at you with no thought, with no prejudice, with no image, with nothing in between. You are there, I am here,
and there is space -- unfilled. vacant.

If this can happen between you and the world, then the world is revealed to you in its totality, in its

reality, in its essence. Then you know that which is, and that is Divine. But now it is not a thought. There is
no thought at all. You are vacant, empty, silent. It is a revelation, not a projection. So a meditative mind
reaches to a state of thoughtlessness, and then only is revelation possible; otherwise you will go on
projecting, you will go on projecting. Thought cannot do otherwise -- it will project.

Go deep in meditation, and remain with reality without thoughts. Sit under a tree without thoughts, look

at the tree with no thought in the mind, with no preconception. Let the tree be there, encountered by your
consciousness. Be a mirror -- silent, with no thought waves -- and let the tree be mirrored in it. And then
suddenly you will know that the tree never existed as a tree. That was only an appearance, a face, a persona.
It was Divine -- just clothed as a tree. The tree was just a clothing; now you have known the inside. No need
to remember it! Wherever you move with this meditative state, God will be there, the Divine will be there.

I would like to say it in this way: the Divine is not an object; you cannot find the Divine as an object

somewhere. It is a state of mind. When you have that state of mind, it is everywhere. And if you don't have
that state of mind, you can create a false, thinking state. But that has to be continuously maintained -- and
you cannot maintain anything continuously.

So you will find saints weeping and repenting and feeling they have sinned because they haven't

maintained continuously. How can you maintain continuously? If you are maintaining anything, you will

have to relax. Any effort has to be relaxed. If you have tried to remember that the tree is not a tree but God,
after a certain period you will have so much tensed the mind that you will need rest. When you rest, the tree
will just be a mere tree, and the God will have disappeared. Then try again, and go on trying. With effort,
relaxation is bound to come, it will follow.

You can do anything with effort, but it cannot become your nature. You will go on losing it again and

again. So if you go on losing a certain feeling, know that it is a projection. When you cannot lose it, do
whatsoever you want to do or don't want to do, be whatsoever....

I would like to tell you a story: A Chinese Zen monk was living under a tree for thirty years, and he was

known to be a very realized man. A woman of the village was serving that monk continuously for thirty
years. The monk was known as absolutely pure. Now he was old, and that woman was also old. That
woman was on her deathbed, so she called a prostitute from the village and asked her to go to the monk in
the night, at midnight: "Just go and embrace him, and come back and tell me how he reacted."
The prostitute asked, "What is the purpose of it?"

The old woman said, "I have served him for thirty years, but still I feel that his purity is a maintained

purity. It is not yet effortless. So before dying I want to know whether I was serving a right man or whether
I was just deluded as he is deluded -- because I have been a part in this. So just before my death, let me
know it. I want to know."

So the prostitute went. It was midnight and the monk was meditating -- the last meditation of the night.

The moment he saw that the prostitute was coming... he knew her, and he knew well. She belonged to the
same village. And he knew well, moreover, because he had been attracted to her so many times before.
Really, he was fighting against this prostitute for years. He was bewildered. He just ran out of the hut and
cried, "Why have you come here? Don't touch me!" And he was trembling and perspiring. The prostitute
laughed, went back, and told the old woman that this had happened.

The old woman said, "Then I was deceived. He is still the same. Nothing has changed -- he reacts very

ordinarily. He is afraid. His mind is still attached; his mind is still sexual."

Sex can have just the reverse aspect also. You can be attracted in two ways -- positively or negatively.

Negative attraction may not look like attraction, but it is.

The same happened to Buddha. Buddha was staying under a tree in a forest. Some young men had come

for a picnic, to enjoy themselves. They had brought a prostitute with them. They were eating and they were
drinking, and they became so intoxicated that the prostitute escaped. They were intoxicated so much that the
prostitute escaped! When they became conscious that the prostitute had escaped, they followed her.

There was only one path. The prostitute must have passed where Buddha was sitting. So they came and

asked the Buddha, "bhikkhu, have you seen a naked beautiful girl passing by here? -- because this is the
only path."

Buddha opened his eyes and he said, "It is difficult to say whether she was a woman or a man; it is

difficult to say whether she was beautiful or not; it is difficult to say whether she was naked or clothed. But
someone has passed -- to this much I can be a witness. Someone has passed.

"I cannot say whether that one was a woman or a man because I am not interested -- not interested at all,

not even negatively. Whether she was beautiful or ugly, I am not interested. Whether she was clothed or
naked, I am not interested. For this much I can vouch: someone has passed.

"And one thing more. The night is so silent -- is it good, young men, to go after the one who has passed,

to find that person? Or is it better to come and sit beside me and to find yourself? The night is very silent, so
what do you think? Is it better to find yourself or to go in search of someone else?"

This is a very different mind -- no negative, no positive attachment -- as if it is meaningless. Meaning

can exist even when you are antagonistic. It exists more, rather. Any maintenance for any state of mind, any
effort to maintain it, shows that you are still fighting. It is not a realization; it is still an effort to impose
something.

So be silent, thoughtless -- and then know what is. Don't think about it and don't preformulate anything

about it. Don't be concerned with philosophies and metaphysical theories, don't be concerned with ideas --
only then is the reality revealed. If you are concerned with ideas, then you will project something onto the
reality and the reality will just serve as a screen. And this is the danger: you can come to know anything you
want, you can project anything you want.

Mind has two capacities: one is that it can project anything, and the other is that it can be totally vacant.

These are the two possibilities. If the mind is used as a positive projection, then you can realize anything
you like, but it is not a realization -- you are living in a dream. Vacate the mind, and face reality with a

vacant mind, with no thought -- then you know what is.

The Ultimate Alchemy, Vol 1

Chapter #15

Chapter title: Witnessing: The Base of all Techniques

3 June 1972 pm in Bombay, India

Archive code: 7206035

ShortTitle: ULTAL115

Audio:

Yes

Video:

No

DRIK SWAROOP AWASTHANAM AKSHATAHA
TO BE ESTABLISHED IN ONE'S OWN WITNESSING NATURE IS AKSHAT -- THE UNPOLISHED AND
UNBROKEN RICE USED FOR THE WORSHIP.

WITNESSING is the technique for centering. We discussed centering. A man can live in two ways: he

can live from his periphery or he can live from his center. The periphery belongs to the ego and the center
belongs to the being. If you live from the ego, you are always related with the other. The periphery is related
with the other.

Whatsoever you do is not an action, it is always a reaction. You do it in response to something done to

you. From the periphery there is no action -- everything is a reaction; nothing comes from your center. In a
way, you are just a slave of the circumstances. You are not doing anything; rather, you are being forced to
do. From the center the situation changes diametrically: from the center you begin to act. For the first time
you begin to exist not as a relata but in your own right.

Buddha is passing a village. Some people are very angry, very much against his teachings. They abuse

him, they insult him. The Buddha listens silently and then he says, "If you are finished then allow me to
move. I am to reach to the other village and they will be waiting for me. If something is still remaining in
your mind, then when I am passing back by this route you can finish it."

They say, "We have abused you, insulted you. Are you not going to answer?"
Buddha says, "I never react now. What you do is up to you -- I never react now. You cannot force me to

do something. You can abuse me; that is up to you. I am not a slave. I have become a free man. I act from
my center, not from my periphery, and your abuse can touch only the periphery, not my center. My center
remains untouched."

You are so much touched, not because your center is touched. but only because you have no center. You

are just the periphery, identified with the periphery. The periphery is bound to be touched by everything --
everything that happens. It is just your boundary, so whatsoever happens is bound to touch it.

And you don't have any center. The moment you have a center. then you have a distance from yourself,

you have a distance from your periphery. Someone can abuse the periphery, but not you. You can remain
aloof, detached. There is a distance between you and yourself. Between you as your periphery and you as
the center there is a distance, and that distance cannot be broken by anyone else -- because no one can
penetrate to the center. The outside world can touch you only as the periphery.

So Buddha says, "Now I am centered. Ten years before it would have been different. If you had abused

me, then I would have reacted -- but now I only act."

Understand clearly the distinction between reaction and action. You love someone because someone

loves you. Buddha also loves you -- not because you love him; that is irrelevant. Whether you love him or
hate him is irrelevant. He loves you because it is an act, not a reaction. The act comes from you, and the
reaction is forced upon you. Centering means now you have begun to act.

Another point to be remembered: when you act, the act is always total. When you react, it can never be

total. It is always partial, fragmentary, because when I act from my periphery -- that is, when I react -- it
cannot be total because I am not involved in it really. Only my periphery is involved, so it cannot be total.

So if you love from your periphery, your love can never be total -- it is always partial. And that means

much, because if love is partial then the remaining space will be filled by hate. If your kindness is partial,
the remaining space will be filled by cruelty. If your goodness is partial, then who will fill the remaining
space? If your God is partial, then you will need a Devil to fill the remaining space.

That means a partial act is bound to be contradictory, in conflict with itself. Modern psychology says

you both love and you hate simultaneously. Amphibian is your mind -- contradictory. To the same object
you are related with love and with hate. And if love and hate are both there, then there is going to be a
confusion -- and a poisonous confusion. Your kindness is mixed with cruelty. and your charity is theft, and
your prayer becomes a violence. And even if you try to be a saint, on the periphery, your sainthood is bound
to be tinged with sin. On the periphery, everything is going to be self-contradictory.

Only when you act from the center is your act total. And when that act is total, it has a beauty of its own.

When the act is total, it is moment-to-moment. When the act is total, you don't carry the memory -- you
need not! When the act is partial, it is a suspended thing. You eat something: if the eating is partial, then
when the actual eating is finished you will continue eating in the mind. rt will remain suspended. Only a
total thing can have an end and can have a beginning. A partial thing is just a continuous series with no
beginning and with no end. You are in your home. and you have carried your shop and market with you.
You are in your shop, and you have carried your house and household affairs. You are never, you can never
be, at any single moment. totally in it. Much is being carried continuously. This is the heaviness, the tense
heaviness on the mind, on the heart.

A total act has a beginning and an end. It is atomic; it is not a series. It is there, and then it is not there.

You are completely free from it to move into the unknown. Otherwise one goes on in grooves, the mind
becomes just groovy. You go on moving in the same circular way, in a vicious circle. You go on
continuously in it.

Because the past is never finished, it comes into the present: i t goes on and penetrates into the future.

So, really, a partial mind. a peripheral mind, carries its past, and the past is a big thing. Even if you don't
consider past lives, even then the past is a big thing. Fifty years' experiences, beautiful and ugly, but
unfinished, everything unfinished -- so you go on carrying a fifty-year-long past which is dead.

This dead past will fall upon a single moment of the present. It is bound to kill it. So you cannot live, it

is impossible. With this past on you, upon you, you cannot live. Every single moment is so fresh and so
delicate, this whole dead weight will kill it. It is killing! Your past goes on killing your present, and when
the present is dead it becomes a part. When it is alive, it is not part of you. When it becomes dead, when it
has been killed by your dead past, then it becomes yours, then it is part of you. This is the situation.

The moment you begin to act from the center, every act is total, atomic. It is there and then it is not

there. You are completely free from it. Then you can move with no burden, unburdened. And only then can
you live in the new moment that is always there -- by coming to it fresh.

But you can come to it fresh only when there is no past to be carried. And you will have to carry the past

if it is unfinished. The mind has a tendency to finish everything. If it is unfinished, then it has to be carried.
If something has remained unfinished during the day, then you will dream about it in the night -- because
the mind has a tendency to finish everything. The moment it is finished, the mind is unburdened from it.
Unless it is finished. the mind is bound to come to it again and again.

Whatsoever you are doing -- your love, your sex, your friendship -- everything is unfinished. And you

cannot make it total if you remain on the periphery. So how to be centered in oneself? How to attain this
centering so that you are not on the periphery? Witnessing is the technique.

This word "witnessing" is a most significant word. There are hundreds of techniques to achieve

centering, but witnessing is bound to be a part, a basic part, in every technique. Whatsoever the technique
may be, witnessing will be the essential part in it. So it will be better to call it "the technique of all
techniques". It is not simply a technique. The process of witnessing is the essential part of all the
techniques.

One can talk about witnessing as a pure technique also. For example, J. Krishnamurti: he is talking

about witnessing as a pure technique. But that talk is just like talking about the spirit without the body. You
cannot feel it, you cannot see it. Everywhere the spirit is embodied; you can feel the spirit through the body.
Of course, the spirit is not the body, but you can feel it through the body.

Every technique is just a body, and witnessing is the soul. You can talk about witnessing independent of

any body, any matter; then it becomes abstract, totally abstract. So Krishnamurti has been talking
continuously for half a century, but whatsoever he is saying is so pure, unembodied, that one thinks that one
is understanding, but that understanding remains just a concept.

In this world nothing exists as pure spirit. Everything exists embodied. So witnessing is the spirit of all

spiritual techniques, and all the techniques are bodies, different bodies. So first we must understand what
witnessing is, and then we can understand witnessing through some bodies, some techniques.

We know thinking, and one has to start from thinking to know what witnessing means because one has

to start from what one knows. We know thinking. Thinking means judgement: you see something and you
judge. You see a flower and you say it is beautiful or not beautiful. You hear a song and you appreciate it or
you don't appreciate it. You appreciate something or you condemn something.

Thinking is judgement. The moment you think, you have begun to judge. Thinking is evaluation. You

cannot think without evaluation. How can you think about a flower without evaluating it? The moment you
start thinking you will say it is beautiful. not beautiful. You will have to use some category because thinking
is categorizing. The moment you have categorized a thing -- labelled it, named it -- you have thought about
it. Thinking is impossible if you are not going to judge. If you are not going to judge, then you can just
remain aware -- but you cannot think.

A flower is here, and I say to you, "See it, but don't think. Look at the flower, but don't think." So what

can you do? If thinking is not allowed, what can you do? You can only witness; you can only be aware. You
can only be conscious of the flower. You can face the fact. The flower is here -- now you can encounter it. If
thinking is not allowed you cannot say, "It is beautiful. It is not beautiful. I know about it," or, "It is strange
-- I have never seen it." You cannot say anything. Words cannot be used because every word has a value in
it. Every word is a judgement.

Language is burdened with judgement; language can never be impartial. The moment you use a word,

you have judged. So you cannot use language, you cannot verbalize. If I say, "This is a flower -- look at it,
but don't think!" then verbalization is not allowed. So what can you do? You can only be a witness. If you
are there without thinking, just facing something, it is witnessing. Then witnessing means a passive
awareness. Remember -- passive. Thinking is active. You are doing something. Whatsoever you are seeing,
you are doing something with it. You are not just passive, you are not like a mirror -- you are doing
something. And the moment you do something, you have changed the thing.

I see a flower and I say, "It is beautiful!" I have changed it. Now I have imposed something on the

flower. Now, whatsoever the flower is, to me it is a flower plus my feeling of its being beautiful. Now the
flower is far away. Tn between the flower and me is my sense of judgement, my evaluation of its being
beautiful. Now the flower is not the same to me. The quality has changed. I have come into it. Now my
judgement has penetrated into the fact. Now it is more like a fiction and less like a fact.

This feeling that the flower is beautiful doesn't belong to the flower, it belongs to me. I have entered the

fact. Now the fact is not virgin. I have corrupted it. Now my mind has become part of it. Really, to say that
my mind has become part of it means: my past has become part, because when I say, "This flower is
beautiful," it means I have judged it through my past knowledge. How can you say that this flower is
beautiful? Your experiences of the past, your conceptions of the past, that something like this is beautiful --
you have judged it according to your past.

Mind means your past, your memories. The past has come upon the present. You have destroyed a

virgin fact; now it is distorted. Now there is no flower. The flower as a reality in itself is no more there. It is
corrupted by you, destroyed by you. Your past has come in between. You have interpreted. This is thinking.
Thinking means bringing the past to a present fact. That's why thinking can never lead you to the Truth --
because Truth is virgin and has to be faced in its total virginity. The moment you bring your past in you are
destroying it. Then it is an interpretation, not a realization of the fact. You have disrupted it. The purity is
lost.

Thinking means bringing your past to the present. Witnessing means no past, just the present; no

bringing in of the past. Witnessing is passive. You are not doing anything -- you arc! Simply, you are there.
Only you are present. The flower is present, you are present -- then there is a relationship of witnessing.
When the flower is present and your whole past is present, not you, then it is a relationship of thinking.

So start from thinking. What is thinking? It is the bringing of the mind into the present. You have

missed the present then you have missed it totally! The moment past penetrates into the present, you have
missed it. When you say, "This flower is beautiful," really, it has become the past. When you say, "This
flower is beautiful," it is a past experience. You have known, you have judged. When the flower is there and
you are there, even to say that this flower is beautiful is not possible. You cannot assert any judgement in
the present. Any judgement, any assertion, belongs to the past. If I say, "I love you," it has become a thing
that is past. If I say, "This flower is beautiful." I have felt, I have judged -- it has become past.

Witnessing is always present, never the past. Thinking is always the past. Thinking is dead, witnessing

is alive. So the next distinction: first, thinking is active -- doing something; witnessing is passive --
non-doing, just being. Thinking is always the past, the dead which has gone away, which is no more;
witnessing is always the present -- that which is. So if you go on thinking, you can never know what
witnessing is.

To stop, end thinking, becomes a start in witnessing. Cessation of thinking is witnessing. So what to do?

-- because thinking is a long habit with us. It has become just a robotlike, mechanical thing. It is not that
you think; it is not your decision now. It is a mechanical habit -- you cannot do anything else. The moment a
flower is there, the thinking has started. We have no non-verbal experiences; only small children have.
Non-verbal experience is really experience. Verbalization is escaping from the experience.

When I say, "The flower is beautiful," the flower has vanished from me. Now it is my mind, not the

flower I am concerned with. Now it is the image of the flower in my mind, not the flower itself. Now the
flower itself is a picture in the mind, a thought in the mind, and now I can compare with my past
experiences and judge. But the flower is no more there. When you verbalize, you are closed to experience.

When you are non-verbally aware, you are open, vulnerable. Witnessing means a constant opening to

experience, no closing. What to do? This mechanical habit of so-called thinking has to be broken
somewhere. So whatsoever you are doing, try to do it nonverbally. It is difficult, arduous, and in the
beginning it seems absolutely impossible, but it is not. It is not impossible -- it is difficult. You are walking
on the street: walk non-verbally, just walk, even if just for a few seconds, and you will have a glimpse of a
different world -- a non-verbal world, the real world, not the world of the mind man has created in himself.

You are eating: eat non-verbally. Someone asked Bokuju -- Bokuju was a great Zen Master -- "What's

your SADHANA?"

So Bokuju said, "My sadhana is very simple: when I am hungry, I eat; when I am sleepy, I sleep -- and

this is all."

The man was just bewildered. He said, "What are you saying? I also eat and I also sleep, and everyone is

doing the same. So what is in that that you call it SADHANA?"

Bokuju said, "When you are eating you are doing many things, not only eating. And when you are

sleeping, you are doing everything else except sleeping. But when I eat, I simply eat; when I sleep, I simply
sleep. Every act is total!"

Every act becomes total if you are non-verbal. So try to eat without any verbalization in the mind, with

no thinking in the mind. Just eat, and then eating becomes meditation -- because if you are non-verbal you
will become a witness. If you are verbal you will become a thinker. If you are non-verbal you cannot do
anything about it, you cannot help it -- you will be a witness, automatically. So try to do anything
non-verbally: walk, eat, take a bath or just sit silently. Then just sit -- then be a "sitting"! Don't think. Then
even just sitting can become meditation, just walking can become meditation.

Someone else was asking Bokuju, "Give me some technique of meditation."
Bokuju said, "I can give you a technique, but you will not be able to meditate -- because you can

practise a technique with a verbalizing mind."

Your fingers can move on a rosary, and you can go on thinking. If your fingers just move on the rosary

with no thinking, it becomes a meditation. Then, really, no technique is needed. The whole life is a
technique. So Bokuju said, "It would be better if you be with me and watch me. Don't ask for a method. Just
watch me -- and you will come to know."

The poor fellow watched for seven days. He began to be more confused. After seven days he said,

"When I came, I was less confused. Now I am more confused. I have watched you for seven days
continuously -- what is there to be watched?"

Bokuju said, "Then you have not watched. When I walk, have you seen? -- I simply walk. When you

bring tea in the morning for me, have you watched? -- I simply take the tea and drink it: just drinking There
is NO Bokuju -- just drinking. No Bokuju -- just drinking of the tea. Have you watched? If you have

watched, then you must have felt that Bokuju is no more."

This is a very subtle point -- because if the thinker is there, then there is ego; then you are a Bokuju or

somebody else. But if only action is there with no verbalization, no thinking, there is no ego. So Bokuju
says, "Have you really watched? Then there was no Bokuju -- just drinking of the tea, walking in the
garden, digging a hole in the earth."

Buddha, because of this, has said, "There is no soul" -- because you have not watched, you go on

continuously thinking that you have a soul. You are not! If you are a witness, then you are not. The "I"
forms itself through thoughts. So one thing more: accumulated thoughts, piled-up memories, create the
feeling of ego -- that you are.

Try this experiment: cut your whole past away from you -- no memory. You don't know who your

parents are; you don't know to whom you belong -- to which country, to which religion, to which race. You
don't know where you were educated, whether you were educated or not. Just cut the whole past -- and
remember who you are. You cannot remember who you are. You are, obviously. You are, but who are you?
In this moment, you cannot feel an "I". The ego is just accumulated past. The ego is your thought
condensed, crystallized.

So Bokuju says, "If you have watched me, I was not. There was drinking of the tea, but no drinker.

Walking was there in the garden, but no walker. Action was there, but no actor."

In witnessing, there is no sense of I; in thinking there is. So if the so-called thinkers are so deeply rooted

in their egos. it is not just a coincidence. Artists, thinkers, philosophers, literary persons. if they are so
egoistic, it is not just a coincidence. The more thoughts you have, the greater the ego you have. In
witnessing there is no ego, but this comes only if you can transcend language. Language is the barrier.
Language is needed to communicate with others; it is not needed to communicate with oneself. It is a useful
instrument -- rather, the most useful instrument. Man could create a society, a world, only because of
language -- but because of language, man has forgotten himself.

Language is our world. If for a single moment man forgets his language, then what remains? Culture,

society, Hinduism, Christianity, communism -- what remains? Nothing remains. If only language is taken
out of existence, the whole humanity with its culture, civilization, science, religion, philosophy, disappears.

Language is a communication with others; it is the only communication. It is useful, but it is dangerous

-- and whenever some instrument is useful, it is in the same proportion dangerous a!so. The danger is this:
that the more mind moves into language. the farther away it goes from the center. So one needs a subtle
balance and a subtle mastery to be capable of moving into language, and also to be capable of leaving
language, of going out of language. of moving out of language.

Witnessing means moving out of language, verbalization. mind. Witnessing means a state of no-mind,

no-thinking. So try it! It is a long effort, and nothing is predictable -- but try, and the effort will give you
some moments when suddenly language disappears. And then a new dimension opens. You become aware
of a different world -- the world of simultaneity, the world of here and now, the world of no-mind, the world
of reality.

Language must evaporate. So try to do ordinary acts, bodily movements, without language. Buddha used

this technique to watch the breath. He would say to his bhikkhus, "Go on watching your breath. Don't do
anything: just watch the breath coming in, the breath going out, the breath coming in, the breath going out."
It is not to be said like this -- it is to be felt. Mm? The breath coming in, with no words. Feel the breath
coming in, move with the breath, let your consciousness go deep with the breath. Then let it move out. Go
on moving with your breath. Be alert!

Buddha is reported to have said, "Don't miss even a single breath. If a single breath is missed

physiologically, you will be dead; and if a single breath is missed in awareness, you will be missing the
center, you will be dead inside." So Buddha said, "Breath is essential for the life of the body, and awareness
of the breath is essential for the life of the inner center."

Breathe, be aware. And if you are trying to be aware of your breathing, you cannot think, because the

mind cannot do two things simultaneously -- thinking and witnessing. The very phenomenon of witnessing
is absolutely, diametrically opposite to thinking, so you cannot do both. Just as you cannot be both alive and
dead, as you cannot be both asleep and awake, you cannot be both thinking and witnessing. Witness
anything, and thinking will stop. Thinking comes in, and witnessing disappears. Witnessing is a passive
awareness with no action inside. Awareness itself is not an action.

One day Mulla Nasrudin was very much worried, in deep brooding. Anyone could look at his face and

feel that he was lost somewhere in thoughts, very tense, in anguish. His wife became alarmed. She asked,

"What are you doing, Nasrudin? What are you thinking? What is the problem? Why are you so worried?"

The Mulla opened his eyes and said, "This is the ultimate problem. I am thinking about how one knows

when one is dead. How does one know that one is dead? If I am to die, how will I recognize that I am dead?
-- because I have not known death. Recognition means you have known something before.

"I see you and recogniZe that you are A, or B or C, because I have known you. Death I have not

known," said the Mulla. "And when it comes, how am I to recognize it? That is the problem, and I am very
much worried. And when I am dead I cannot ask anyone else, so that door is also closed. I cannot refer to
some scripture, no teacher can be of any help."

The wife laughed and said, "You are unnecessarily worrying. When death comes, one knows

immediately. When death comes to you, you will know because you will become just cold, ice-cold." Mulla
was relieved. A certain sign, the key, was in his hand.

After two or three months he was cutting wood in the forest. It was a winter morning and everything

was cold. Suddenly he remembered, and he felt his hands -- they were cold. He said, "Okay! Now death is
coming, and I am so far from my house that I cannot even inform anyone. Now what am I to do? I forgot to
ask my wife. She told me how one will feel, but what is one to do when death comes? Now no one is here,
and everything is going just cold."

Then he remembered. He had seen many persons dead, so he thought, "It is good to lie down." That is

all that he has seen dead persons do, so he lies down. Of course, he becomes more cold, he feels more cold
-- death is upon him. His donkey is just resting by his side under the tree. Two wolves, thinking that Mulla
is dead, attack his donkey. Mulla opens his eyes and sees, and he thinks, "Dead men cannot do anything.
Had I been alive, wolves, you couldn't have taken such liberties with my donkey. But now I cannot do
anything. Dead men are never reported to have done anything. I can only witness."

If you become dead to your past, totally dead, then you can only witness. What else can you do?

Witnessing means becoming dead to your past, memory, thought, everything. Then in the present moment,
what can you do? You can only witness. No judgement is possible. Judgement is possible only against past
experiences. No evaluation is possible; evaluation is possible only against past evaluations. No thinking is
possible; thinking is possible only if the past is there, brought into the present. So what can you do? You
can witness.

In the old Sanskrit literature, the Teacher is defined as the death acharya mrityuh. The Teacher is

defined as death! In the Katha Upanishad, Nachiketa is sent to Yama, the god of death, to be taught. And
when Yama, the death god, offers many, many allurements to Nachiketa -- "Take this, take the kingdom,
take so much wealth, so many horses, so many elephants, this and this," a long list of things -- Nachiketa
says, "I have come to learn what death is, because unless I know what death is I cannot know what life is."

So a Teacher was known in the old days as a person who can become a death to the disciple -- who can

give death, who can help you to die so that you can be reborn.

Nicodemus asked Jesus, "How can I attain to the Kingdom of God?"
Jesus said, "Unless you die first, nothing can be attained. Unless you are reborn, nothing can be

attained."

And this being reborn is not an event, it is a continuous process. One has to be reborn every moment. It

is not that you are reborn once and then it is okay and finished. Life is a continuous birth, and death is also
continuous. You have to die once because you have not lived at all. If you live, then you will have to die
every moment. Die every moment to the past whatsoever it has been, a heaven or a hell. Whatsoever -- die
to it, and be fresh and young and reborn into the moment. Witness now! You can only witness now if you
are fresh.
This sutra says:

TO BE ESTABLISHED IN ONE'S OWN WITNESSING NATURE IS akshat -- THE UNPOLISHED

AND UNBROKEN RICE USED FOR THE WORSHIP.

This Upanishad is giving deeper meaning to every symbol of worship. akshat -- unpolished rice -- is

used in worship. What is akshat? The word is very meaningful. But translated into English it becomes just
an ordinary thing. akshat means "that which has not been penetrated". akshat means "virgin". We say
akshatkanya -- virgin. akshat means virgin, unpenetrated, and the unpolished rice is used just as a symbol --
virgin, fresh, raw. But the word akshat means unpenetrated.

What is akshat in you, what has not been penetrated ever? That is your witnessing nature. Everything

has been corrupted; only one thing in you remains uncorrupted. Your body is corrupted, your mind is
corrupted, your thinking, your emotions, everything is corrupted. Everything has been influenced,
impressed, by the outside. Only one thing remains in you totally uncorrupted, untouched akshat -- and that
is your witnessing nature. The world cannot touch it. Your thoughts can be influenced, manipulated, but not
your witnessing consciousness.

Your thoughts can be changed, you can be converted; you are being converted every moment. Every

influence is a converting influence, because either for or against you react. And even if you react against a
particular influence, you have been converted, you have been manipulated. Every moment you are being
manipulated by outside situations, impressions, influences. But one thing remains untouched, and that is
your witnessing nature.

The sutra says, "It is your nature, it is you." It is not something taught, it is not something constructed, it

is not something given. It is you! When we say nature, it means it is you. You and it cannot be separated. So
the last thing: witnessing nature, witnessing consciousness, is not something which has to be achieved. You
have it already; otherwise it cannot be said to be your nature.

A child is born. If no language is taught, then the child will not be able to know any language. It is not

nature -- it is nurture. If the child is taught nothing, he will know nothing; if he is taught Hinduism, he will
be Hindu; if he is taught communism, he will be a communist. Whatsoever he is taught he will be. It is not
his nature. So no one is born as a Hindu, no one is born as a Mohammedan. These are not natures -- these
are conditionings You are forced to be conditioned into a particular pattern. So Hinduism is a habit, not
nature. Mohammedanism is again a habit, not nature. By "habit" I mean something taught, something
learned. You are not born with it.

Witnessing is not like that. You are born with it. Of course. it is hidden. In the deepest depths of your

being is the seed. Everything is taught except the witnessing nature. Knowledge is taught, but not knowing.
A child is born with knowing, not with knowledge. He has the capacity to know -- that's why you can teach
him -- but that capacity belongs to him. You will go on conditioning. Many things will be taught, and he
will learn many things -- languages, religions, ideologies. He will be burdened; and the more burdened, the
more experienced, the more he will have a mind. And the society will value it, respect it.

Mind is respected in the society because it is a social product. So whenever there is a brilliant mind --

that means one who is efficient in accumulating -- society appreciates, respects it. This mind created by
society will be there, and this mind will go on growing. And you can die with this mind, burdened with this
mind, without knowing the inner nature that you were born with.

Witnessing, the effort towards it, means breaking this mind, creating a crack in this mind, to have a

peek, a probe into nature -- into your nature. You are born as an unknown witnessing energy. Then the
society encrusts you, clothes you all around. That clothing is your mind, and if you are identified with this
clothing then you will never be able to know that which you are, that which you always have been. And one
can die without knowing oneself. That capacity is there. But in a way it has a beauty of its own also.

One has to throw the society from inside; one has to be free from society. And when I say that one has to

be free from society, I don't mean to be free from the outside society. You cannot be. Wherever you move,
the outside society will be there. Even if you move to a forest, the trees and the animals will become your
society. And when a monk, a hermit, moves to a forest and begins to live with animals, you say, "What
beauty!" But he is again creating a society. When a hermit lives in the forest and begins to talk with trees,
you say, "What a religious man!" But, really. he is again creating a society.

You cannot live without society as far as your outside world is concerned. You exist in society! But you

can throw the society from inside, you can be free from society inside. And those who try to free themselves
from the society which exists outside are just in a futile effort. They are in a futile effort -- they cannot
succeed. and they are deceiving themselves, because the real problem is not how to get away from the
society which exists outside; the real problem is how not to be burdened inside by the society.

If there are no thoughts, if there are no memories, if there are no past burdens of experience, you are

freed from society inside. You become virgin, pure, innocent. You are reborn. And then you know what
your nature is, what your Tao is, what your dharma is. Dharma is translated again and again as "religion'. It
is not; it is not religion. dharma means nature; dharma means that which you are already -- your essence.

Two words will be useful to understand: Gurdjieff uses these two words -- "essence" and "personality".

Essence is your nature and personality is the construct, the social structure given to you. We are all
personalities, unaware, completely unaware of the essence. This sutra saying "witnessing nature" means
essence -- the essential you. So witnessing is not something which you achieve; it is not something like an

attainment. Rather, it is a discovery, an uncovering. Something is there which you have forgotten -- you
uncover it. So Gurdjieff never uses the word "witnessing"; rather, he uses "remembering".

Kabir, Nanak, they also use "remembering" -- surati. surati means remembering. surati is smriti --

remembering. Nanak, Kabir or Gurdjieff, they use the word "remembering" only because, really, your
essence is not a new thing to be achieved -- it is already there. You have only to remember it; you have only
to become aware of something which is already present. But you cannot be aware of it if you are crowded
by thoughts, if you are lost in the crowd of thoughts.

The sky is there -- but when there are clouds, dark clouds all over, you cannot see the sky. Clouds are

just incidental. They are now, they were not before, and they will not be again. They come and go, and the
sky remains always. And the sky is akshat; no cloud can corrupt it. The sky remains virgin, pure, innocent.
No cloud can corrupt it. Clouds come and go, but the sky is that which is always -- unperturbed, untouched,
just an inner space, an inner sky is there. That is called your nature.

Societies will come and go. You will take birth and you will die and many lives will come and go, and

many, many clouds will pass through you. But the inner sky -- AKSHAT -- remains uncorrupted, virgin.
But you can become identified with clouds. You can begin to feel that "I am the clouds".

Everyone is identified with his own thoughts which are nothing more than clouds. You say, "my

thought," and if someone attacks your thought, you never feel that your thought is being attacked -- you are
being attacked. The sky is fighting -- fighting for clouds because some cloud has been attacked. The sky
feels, "I am attacked!" The sky was there when there was no cloud, the sky will be there when there is no
cloud. Clouds add nothing to the sky. And when clouds are no more, nothing is lost. The sky remains itself
totally.

This is the nature -- the inner sky, the inner space. One uncovers it, discovers it, through witnessing.

Witnessing is the basic, essential thing. It can be used in many, many techniques.

In the Chinese Taoist tradition, they have a method known as "Tai-Chi". It is a method of centering, a

method of witnessing. They say do whatsoever, but remain conscious of the center at the navel. Walking, be
conscious of the center at the navel. Eating, be conscious of the center at the navel. Fighting, be conscious
of the center at the navel. Do whatsoever you are doing, but remain conscious of one thing: that you are
centered in the navel. Again, if you are conscious of the navel, you cannot think. The moment you begin to
think, you will not be conscious of the navel.

This is a body technique. Buddha uses breathing, breath; Taoists use hara. They call the center at the

navel hara. That's why Japanese suicide is known as hara-kiri. It means committing suicide remaining
centered in the hara so it is not suicide, it is not just suicide. They call it hara-kiri only if a person commits
suicide remaining continuously aware of the center at the hara. Then it is not suicide at all -- he is doing it
so consciously. You cannot commit suicide so consciously. With you, suicide is committed only when you
are so much disturbed that you have become absolutely unconscious.

Whether you use the hara or you use breathing, you must remain conscious. Krishnamurti says, "Remain

conscious of your thought process." Whether it is the process of breathing or the palpitation of the hara or
the thought process, it makes no difference. The basic thing remains the same.

Remain conscious of your thought process. A thought arises: know that it has arisen. A thought is there:

know that the thought is there. When the thought moves and goes out of existence, then know, witness that
it has disappeared. Whenever a thought goes and another thought comes, there is a gap in between. Be
conscious of the gap. Remain conscious of the thought process -- a thought moving, a gap, again a thought.
Be conscious!

Use thought as an object for your witnessing. It makes no difference: you can use breathing, you can use

thought, you can use the HARA -- you can use anything. There are many methods and each country has
developed its own. And sometimes there is very much conflict about methods -- but if you go deep, one
thing is essential and that is witnessing -- whatsoever the method may be. The difference is only of the
body.

And Krishnamurti says, "I have no method," but he has. This witnessing of the thought process is as

much a method as the witnessing of breathing. You can witness breathing, you can witness the thought
process. And then, then you can appreciate that if someone is using a rosary, he can witness it. Then there is
no difference between witnessing the movement of the rosary or witnessing breathing or the thought
process.

Sufis use dancing, dervish dancing. They use dancing as the method. You might have heard the name

"whirling dervishes". They move on their heels just like children move sometimes. If you move like that

you will get dizzy -- just moving on your heels, whirling. And they say, "Go on whirling, know that the
body is whirling, and remain conscious. Inside, remain aware! Don't get identified with the whirling body.
The body is whirling -- don't get identified, remain conscious. Then the witnessing will happen."

And I think that the Sufi method is more sudden than any, because to witness thought process is

difficult, it is very subtle. To witness breathing is again difficult because breathing is a non-voluntary
process. But whirling you are doing voluntarily. Dancing, whirling round and round and round, the mind
gets dizzy. If you remain aware, suddenly you find a center. Then the body becomes a wheel and you
become the hub, and the body goes on whirling and the center stands alone, untouched -- akshat --
uncorrupted So there are hundreds and hundreds of methods, but the soul, the significant, the essential, the
foundational thing in all of them, is witnessing.

This sutra says that unless you go to worship with a witnessing nature inside, your going is futile.

Unpolished, raw rice will not do. That can be purchased, that is only a symbol, a symbolic thing. Unless you
bring something unpolished, untouched by society, uncreated, from your own nature, your worship is just
stupid, it is foolish. And you can go on worshipping and you can go on using symbols without knowing
what they mean.

Remember this word AKSHAT -- uncorrupted, fresh, virgin. What is virgin in you? Find it out and

bring it to the Divine feet. Only that virginity can be used -- only that virginity, that freshness, that constant
youngness, can be used for worship.

This witnessing you can understand intellectually. It is not difficult. But that is the difficulty! If you

understand it intellectually and think that the work is done -- that is the difficulty. You can understand it.
Then again it becomes a theory in the mind; then again it becomes a thought in the mind; then again you
have made it a part of the accumulation. Then you can discuss it, you can philosophize about it, but then it is
still a part of the mind -- it is not virgin.

If I say something about witnessing, it goes into your mind, becomes part of yoUr mind, but it is not

from you; it has come from the outside. If you read this Upanishad and then you are impressed, convinced,
and you say inside yourself, "Right, this is the thing," it becomes a theory. It is not from you, it has come
from outside. It is not akshat; it is not virgin. No theory can be virgin. No thought can be virgin. Every
thought is borrowed. Thought can never be original -- never! The very nature of it is borrowed. No one's
thought is original. It cannot be because language is not original, concepts are not original. You learn them.

Akshat means "the original" -- that which you have not learned, the discovery within yourself of

something which belongs to you, which is unique to you, individual to you, which has not been given to
you.

So intellectual understanding won't do. Practise it! Only then, some day, something explodes in you and

you become aware of a different realm of purity, innocence, bliss.

The Ultimate Alchemy, Vol 1

Chapter #16

Chapter title: Will or Surrender

6 June 1972 am in Bombay, India

Archive code: 7206060

ShortTitle: ULTAL116

Audio:

Yes

Video:

No

OSHO, LAST NIGHT YOU SAID THAT THE MIND CANNOT DO TWO THINGS TOGETHER -- THAT IS,
THINKING AND WITNESSING. IT SEEMS THEN THAT WITNESSING IS A MENTAL FACULTY AND AN
ACT OF THE MIND. IS IT SO? PLEASE EXPLAIN. IS THERE ANYTHING LIKE PARTIAL WITNESSING
AND TOTAL WITNESSING?

WITNESSING is not a mental activity; thinking is a mental activity. Rather, it would be better to say

that thinking is mind. When the mind is not, when the mind is absent, when the mind has disappeared, only
then do you have witnessing. It is something behind the mind.

Zen Buddhism uses mind in two ways: the ordinary mind means thinking; then Mind with a capital "M"

means the Mind behind thinking. Consciousness is behind the mind; consciousness comes through the mind.
If mind is in a state of thinking, it becomes opaque, non-transparent, just like a clouded sky -- you cannot
see the sky. When the clouds are not, you can see the sky. When thinking is not there, then you can feel the
witnessing. It is the pure sky behind.

So when I said that you cannot do two things, I meant either you can think or you can witness. If you are

thinking, then you lose witnessing. Then the mind becomes a cloud on your consciousness. If you are
witnessing, you cannot think simultaneously; then the mind is not there. Thinking is an acquired process;
witnessing is your nature. So when I say that you cannot do both or mind cannot do both, I don't mean that
mind is the faculty to witness. Mind is the faculty to think, mind is for "minding".

Really, many problems are created just by language. There is nothing like mind. There is only a process.

not a thing. It is better to call it minding than mind. It is a process of continuous thought, one thought being
followed by another. Only in the gaps, only in the intervals between two thoughts, can you have something
of the witnessing nature. But thoughts are so speedy that you cannot even feel the gap. If you begin to
witness your thoughts, then the thought process is slowed down and then you begin to feel gaps. One
thought passes, another has not come yet, and there is an interval. In that interval you have witnessing. And
thoughts cannot exist without gaps; otherwise they will begin to overlap each other. They cannot exist! Just
like my fingers are there -- with gaps in between.

If your thought process is slowed down -- and any method of meditation is nothing but a slowing down

of the thought process -- if the thought process is slowed down, you begin to feel the gaps. Through these
gaps is witnessing. Thought is mind; a thoughtless consciousness is witnessing. Thought is acquired from
the outside; witnessing is inside. Consciousness is born with you: thought is acquired, cultivated. So you
can have a Hindu thought, you can have a Mohammedan thought, you can have a Christian thought, but you
cannot have a Christian soul, you cannot have a Hindu soul. Soul is just soul -- consciousness is
consciousness.

Minds have types. You have a particular mind. That particular mind is your upbringing, conditioning,

education, culture. Mind means whatsoever has been put into you from the outside, and witnessing means
whatsoever has not been put from the outside but is your inside -- intrinsically, naturally. It is your nature.
Mind is a by-product, a habit. Witnessing, consciousness, awareness, whatsoever you call it, is your nature.
But you can acquire so many habits, and the nature can go just underneath. You can forget it completely.
So, really, religion is a fight for nature against habits. It is to uncover that which is natural -- the original,
the real you.

So remember the first thing: witnessing and thinking are different states. Thinking belongs to your mind;

witnessing belongs to your nature. And you cannot do both simultaneously. Mind must cease for your
consciousness to be; thought must cease for your real nature to be. So a thinker is one thing, and an
Enlightened person is totally different.

A Buddha is not a thinker. Hegel or Kant are thinkers. They use their minds to reach particular

conclusions. Buddha is not using his mind to reach any conclusions. Buddha is not using his mind at all. He
is really a no-mind. He has stopped using mind. He is using himself, not the mind, to reach any conclusions.
So with the mind you can reach conclusions, but all conclusions will be hypothetical, theoretical, because
one thought can beget another thought. But thought cannot beget reality, thought cannot beget Truth.

Through witnessing you reach reality -- not conclusions, not theories, but direct, immediate facts. For

example, I am saying something to you. You can think about it -- then you have missed the point. You can
think about it, what witnessing is, what mind is -- you can think about it. This is one way, this is the mind's
way. But you can experiment with it and not think. And by "experiment" is meant that you have to know
how to stop the mind and feel the witnessing. Then again you reach to something, but then it is not a

conclusion; it is not something achieved through the thought process. Then it is something you realize.

Someone was asking Aurobindo, "Do you believe in God?"
Aurobindo said, "No, I don't believe in God at all." The questioner was perplexed because he had come

a long way just because he thought Aurobindo was capable of showing him the path towards God. And now
Aurobindo says, "I don't believe."

He couldn't believe his ears, so he asked again. He said, "I am perplexed. I have come a long way just to

ask you how to achieve God. And if you don't believe, then the problem, the question, doesn't arise."

Aurobindo said, "Who says that the question doesn't arise? I don't believe because I know that God is.

But that is not my belief, that is not a conclusion reached by thought. It is not my belief. I know! That is my
knowing."

Mind can, at the most, believe. It can never know. It can believe either that there is God or there is no

God, but both are beliefs. God. These both are beliefs Both have reached to these conclusions through
"minding", through thinking. They have thought, they have tried to probe logically, and then they have
come to certain conclusions.

A Buddha is not a believer -- HE KNOWS! And when I say he knows, knowing is possible only in one

way. It is not through mind. It is through throwing mind completely. It is difficult to conceive because we
have to conceive through the mind; that is the difficulty. I have to talk to you through the medium of the
mind, and you have to listen to me through the medium of the mind. So when I say it is not to be achieved
through mind, your mind takes it -- but it is inconceivable for the mind. It can even create a theory about it.
You may begin to believe that the Truth cannot be achieved through mind. If you begin to believe, you are
in mind again. You can say, "I am not convinced. I don't believe that there is anything beyond the mind."
Then again you are within the mind.

You can never go beyond the mind if you go on using it. You have to take a jump, and meditation means

that jump. That's why meditation is illogical, irrational. And it cannot be made logical; it cannot be reduced
to reason. You have to experience it. If you experience, only then do you know.

So try this: don't think about it, try -- try to be a witness to your own thoughts. Sit down, relaxed, close

your eyes, let your thoughts run just like on a screen pictures run. See them, look at them, make them your
objects. One thought arises: look at it deeply. Don't think about it, just look at it. If you begin to think about
it then you are not a witness -- you have fallen in the trap.

There is a horn outside; a thought arises -- some car is passing; or a dog barks or something happens.

Don't think about it; just look at the thought. The thought has arisen, taken form. Now it is before you. Soon
it will pass. Another thought will replace it. Go on looking at this thought process. Even for a single
moment, if you are capable of looking at this thought process without thinking about it, you will have
gained something in witnessing and you will have known something in witnessing. This is a taste, a
different taste than thinking -- totally different. But one has to experiment with it.

Religion and science are poles apart, but in one thing they are similar and their emphasis is the same:

science depends on experiment, and religion also. Only philosophy is non-experimental. Philosophy
depends just on thinking. Religion and science both depend on experiment: science on objects, religion on
your subjectivity. Science depends on experimenting with other things than you, and Religion depends on
experimenting directly with you.

It is difficult, because in science the experimenter is there, the experiment is there and the object to be

experimented upon is there. There are three things: the object, the subject and the experiment. In religion
you are all the three simultaneously. You are to experiment upon yourself. You are the subject and you are
the object and you are the lab.

Don't go on thinking. Begin, start somewhere, to experiment. Then you will have a direct feeling of

what thinking is and what witnessing is. And then you will come to know that you cannot do both
simultaneously, just as you cannot run and sit simultaneously. If you run, then you cannot sit, then you are
not sitting. And if you are sitting, then you cannot run. But sitting is not a function of the legs. Running is a
function of the legs; sitting is not a function of legs. Rather, sitting is a non-function of the legs. When the
legs are functioning, then you are not sitting. Sitting is a nonfunction of the legs; running is the function.

The same is with the mind: thinking is a function of the mind; witnessing a non-function of the mind.

When the mind is not functioning, you have the witnessing, then you have the awareness. That's why I said
you cannot do both with your mind. You cannot both sit and run with your legs. But that doesn't mean that
sitting is a function of your legs. It is not a function at all; it is a nonfunctioning of your legs.

And you ask, "Is there anything like partial witnessing and total witnessing?" No -- there is nothing like

partial witnessing and total witnessing. Witnessing is total. It may be for a single moment and then it may
go, but when it is there it is total. Can you sit partially or totally? What can we understand by sitting
partially? Witnessing is a total thing. Really, in life, nothing is partial -- in life. Only with mind everything
is partial. Understand this: with mind, nothing is total and never can be total. And when mind is not there,
everything is total, nothing can be partial. So mind is the faculty to bring partialness and fragmentariness in
life.

For example, watch a child in anger. The child is yet raw, uncultured. Look at his anger: the anger is

total; it is not partial. Nothing is suppressed, it is a full flowering. That's why children in anger are so
beautiful. Every totality has a beauty of its own.

When you are in anger, your anger is never total. The mind has come in -- it is going to be partial.

Something is bound to be suppressed, and that something suppressed will become a poison. Then your love
also cannot be total. It is going to be partial. Neither can you hate nor can you love. Whatsoever you do will
be partial because the mind is functioning.

A child can be angry this moment, and the second moment he can be in love. And when he is in anger it

is a total thing, and when he is in love it is again a total thing. Every moment is total! The mind is still
undeveloped. Again, a sage is just like a child. There are many, many differences, but the childhood comes
again -- he is total again. But he cannot be in anger. The child is without a mind as far as this life is
concerned, but past lives and many minds accumulated in the unconscious, they go on working. So a child
appears total, but he cannot be really total. This life's mind is still growing, but he has many, many minds
hidden in the subconscious, in the unconscious, in the deeper realms of the mind.

A sage is totally without mind -- of this life or of past lives -- so he can be only total in anything. He

cannot be angry, he cannot be in hate, and the reason is again that no one can be totally in anger. Anger is
painful and you cannot be totally in anything which gives pain to you. He cannot be in hate because now he
cannot be in anything in which he cannot be total. It is not a question of good and evil; it is not a moral
question. Really, for a sage. it is a question of being total. He cannot be otherwise.

Lao Tzu says, "I call that good in which you can be total and that bad in which you can never be total."

Partiality is sin. If you look at it in this way, then mind becomes sin -- mind is the faculty of being partial.
Witnessing is total, but in our lives nothing is total -- nothing. We are partial in everything. That's why there
is no bliss, no ecstasy -- because only when you are total in something do you have a blissful moment and
never otherwise. Bliss means being total in something, and we are never total in anything. Only a part of us
goes into something and a part of us remains outside. This creates a tension: one part somewhere and
another part somewhere else. So whatsoever we do, even if we love, it is a tension, it is an anguish.

Psychologists say that if you study someone in love, then love appears just like any disease. Even love is

not a blissful thing. It is anguish, a heavy burden. And that's why one gets bored even with love, fed up --
because the mind is not in bliss, it is in anguish. In whatsoever we are partial we are bound to be tense, in
anguish. "Partial" means we are divided, and mind is bound to be partial. Why? Because mind is not one
thing. Mind means many things. Mind is a collection; it is not a unity.

Your nature is a unity. Your mind is a collection; it is not a unity at all. It has been collected by the way.

So many persons have influenced your mind, so many influences have made it. Nothing goes by which is
not impressing your mind. Everything that passes you impresses itself upon you: your friends impress you,
your enemies also; your attractions impress you, your repulsions also; what you like impresses you and
what you don't like also impresses you. You go on collecting in multi-dimensional ways. So mind is just a
junkyard. It is not unitary. It is a "multiverse", it is not a universe, so it can never be total. How can it be
total? It is a crowd with many, many contradictory, self-contradictory openings.

Old psychology believed in one mind, but new psychology says this is a false concept. Mind is a

multiplicity, it is not one. You don't have one mind. It is only a linguistic habit that we go on talking about
one mind. We go on saying "my mind", but this is wrong, factually wrong. It is better to say "my minds".

Mahavir came upon this fact two thousand years ago. He is reported to have said: "Man is not

unipsychic, man is polypsychic -- many minds." That's why you cannot be total with the mind. Either the
majority of your minds is with you or the minoritY. Any mind decision is bound to be a parliamentary
decision and nothing more. At the most you can hope for a majority decision.

And then a second thing comes in: it is not a fixed crowd -- it is a changing crowd. It is not a fixed

crowd! Every moment something is being added and something is being lost, so every moment you have
new minds.

Buddha is passing through a city and someone comes to him and says, "I want to serve humanity. Show

me the path!" Buddha closes his eyes and remains silent. The man feels bewildered. He asks again: "I am
saying that I want to serve humanity, Why have you become silent? Is there something wrong in my asking
this?"

Buddha opens his eyes and says, "You want to serve humanity, but where are you? First BE! You are

not! You are a crowd. This moment you want to serve humanity, the second moment you may want to
murder humanity. First be! You cannot do anything unless you are. So don't think of doings -- first
contemplate about your being."

This "being" can happen only through witnessing, never through thinking. Witnessing is total because

your nature is one. You are born as one, then you accumulate many minds. Then you begin to feel these
many minds as you -- then you are identified, This identification is to be broken.

OSHO, LAST NIGHT YOU SPOKE ABOUT WITNESSING AS A METHOD; OTHER TIMES I HAVE HEARD
YOU SPEAK ABOUT BECOMING A THING TOTALLY, BEING TOTALLY INVOLVED IN ANY GIVEN
SITUATION. USUALLY I AM AT A LOSS AS TO WHICH OF THESE TWO TO FOLLOW: WHETHER TO
STAND BACK AND WITNESS IN A DETACHED WHY OR TO BECOME SOMETHING TOTALLY -- FOR
EXAMPLE, WHEN THERE IS ANGER OR LOVE OR SADNESS.
ARE THESE NOT TWO OPPOSITE PATHS? ARE THEY BOTH FOR DIFFERENT KINDS OF SITUATIONS
OR FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF PEOPLE? WHEN SHOULD ONE DO WHICH?

There are two basic paths -- only two. One is of surrendering and another is of willing: the path of

surrender and the path of will. They are diametrically opposite as far as going through them is concerned.
But they reach to the same goal, they reach to the same realization. So we have to understand a little more in
detail.

The path of will starts with your witnessing Self. It is not concerned with your ego directly -- only

indirectly. To start witnessing, to be aware of your acts, is directly concerned with awakening your inner
Self. If the inner Self is awakened, the ego disappears as a consequence. You are not to do anything with the
ego directly. They cannot both exist simultaneously. If your Self is awakened, the ego will disappear. The
path of will tries to awaken the inner center directly. Many, many methods are used. How to awaken the
Self? We will discuss that.

The path of surrender is directly concerned with the ego, not with the Self. When the ego disappears, the

inner Self is awakened automatically. The path of surrender is concerned with the ego immediately, directly.
You are not to do anything to awaken your inner Self. You are just to surrender your ego. The moment ego
is surrendered, you are left with your inner Self awakened. Of course. these both will work in opposite
directions, because one will be concerned with ego and one will be concerned with Self. Their methods,
their techniques, will be opposite -- and no one can follow both. There is no need to and that is impossible
also. Everyone has to choose.

If you choose the path of will, then you are left alone to work upon yourself. It is an arduous thing. One

has to struggle -- to fight -- to fight with old habits which create sleep. Then the only fight is against sleep,
and the only ambition is for a deep awakening inside. Those who follow will, they know only one sin, and
that sin is spiritual sleepiness.

Many are the techniques. I have discussed some. For example, Gurdjieff used a Sufi exercise. Sufis call

it "halt". For example, you are sitting here, and if you are practising the exercise of "halt" it means total halt.
Whenever the teacher says "Stop!" or "Halt!" then you have to stop totally whatsoever you are doing. If
your eyes are open, then stop them there and then. Now you cannot close them. If your hand is raised, let it
be there. Whatsoever your position and gesture, just be frozen in it. No movements! Halt totally! Try this,
and suddenly you will have an inner awakening -- a feeling. Suddenly you will become aware of your own
frozenness.

The whole body is frozen, you have become a solid stone, you are like a statue. But if you go on

deceiving yourself, then you have fallen into sleep. You can deceive yourself. You can say, "Who is seeing
me? I can close my eyes. They are becoming painful." You can deceive yourself -- then you have fallen into
sleep. No -- deception is sleep. Don't deceive yourself, because no one else is concerned. It is up to you. If
you can be frozen for a single moment you will begin to see yourself as different, and your center will
become aware of your frozen body.

There are other ways. For example, Mahavir and his tradition have used fasting as a method to awaken

the Self. If you fast, the body begins to demand, the body begins to overpower you. Mahavir has said, "Just
witness -- don't do anything. You feel hungry, so feel hungry. The body asks for food -- be a witness to it,
don t do anything. Just be a witness to whatsoever is happening." And it is a deep thing.

There are only two deep things in the body -- sex and food. Nothing is more than these two, because

food is needed for individual survival and sex is needed for race survival. Both are survival mechanisms.
The individual cannot survive without food and the race cannot survive without sex. So sex is food for the
race and food is sex for the individual. These are the deepest things because they are concerned with your
survival -- the most basic things. You will die without them.

So if you are fasting and just witnessing, then you have touched the deepest sleep. And if you can

witness without being identified or bothered -- the body is suffering, the body is hungry, the body is
demanding and you are just witnessing -- suddenly the body will be different. There will be a discontinuity
between you and the body; there will be a gap.

Fasting has been used by Mahavir. Mohammedans have used vigilance in the night -- no sleep! Don't

sleep for a week and then you will know how sleepy the whole being becomes, how difficult it is to
maintain this vigilance. But if one persists, suddenly a moment comes when the body and you are tom apart.
Then you can see that the body needs sleep -- it is not your need.

Many are the methods to work directly to create more awareness in youurself, to bring yourself above

your so-called sleepy existence. No surrender is needed. Rather, one has to fight against surrender. No
surrender is needed, because this is a path of struggle not of surrender. Because of this path, Mahavir was
given the name "Mahavir". "Mahavir" means "the great warrior". This was not his name. His name was
Vardhaman. He was called Mahavir because he was a great warrior as far as this inner struggle is
concerned. He had no Guru, no Master, because it is a lonely path. Even to take somebody's help is not good
-- it may become your sleep.

There is a story: Mahavir was fasting and remaining silent for years together. In a certain village some

mischievous people were disturbing him, harassing him, and he was on a vow of silence. He was beaten so
many times because he would not speak and he remained naked -- completely naked. So the villagers were
at a loss to understand who he was. And he would not speak! And moreover he was naked! So from one
village to another village he would be thrown out, made to leave the village.

The story says Indra, the King of gods, came to him and said to Mahavir, "I can defend you. It has

become so painful. You are being beaten unnecessarily, so just allow me to defend you."

Mahavir rejected the help. Later on, when he was asked why he rejected the help, he said, "This path of

will is a lonely path. You cannot even have a helper with you because then the struggle loosens. Then the
struggle becomes partial. Then you can depend on someone else, and wherever there is dependence sleep
comes in. One has to be totally independent; only then can one be awake.

This is one path, one basic attitude. All these methods of witnessing belong to this path. So when I say,

"Be a witness." it is meant for those who are travellers on the path of will.

Quite the opposite is the method of surrender. Surrender is concerned with your ego, not with your Self.

In surrender you have to give up yourself. Of course, you cannot give the Self; that is impossible
Whatsoever you can give is bound to be your ego. Only the ego can be given -- because it is just incidental
to you. It is not even a part of your being, just something added. It is a possession. Of course, the possessor
has also become possessed by it. But it is a possession, it is a property -- it is not you.

The path of surrender says, "Surrender your ego to the Teacher, to the Divine, to a Buddha." When

someone comes to Buddha and says, "BUDDHAM SHARANAM GAUCHHAMI" -- I take shelter at your
feet. I surrender myself at Buddha's feet," what is he doing? The Self cannot be surrendered, so leave it out.
Whatsoever you can surrender is your ego. That is your possession; you can surrender it. If you can
surrender your ego to someone, it makes no difference to whom -- X, Y or Z. The person to be surrendered
to is irrelevant in a way. The real thing is surrendering. So you can surrender to a God in the sky. Whether
He is there or not is irrelevant. If a concept of the Divine in the sky can help you to surrender your ego, then
it is a good device.

Really, yoga shastras say that God is a device to be surrendered to -- just a device! So you need not

bother whether God is or not. He is just a device, because it will be difficult for you to surrender in a
vacuum. So let there be a God, and you surrender. Even a false device can help. For example, you see a rope
on the street and you think that it is a snake. It moves like a snake. You are afraid, you are trembling, you
are running. You begin to perspire, and your perspiration is real. And there is no snake -- there is just a rope
mistaken for a snake.

The yoga sutras say that God is a just a device to be surrendered to. Whether God is or is not is not

meaningful; you need not bother about it. If He is, you will come to know through surrender. You need not
be bothered about it before surrender. If He is, then you will know; if He is not, then you will know. So no
discussion, no argument, no proof is needed. And it is very beautiful: they say He is a device, just a
hypothetical thing to which you can surrender yourself, to help you surrender. So a Teacher can become a
god; a Teacher is a god. Unless you feel a Teacher as a god, you cannot surrender. Surrendering becomes
possible if you feel that Mahavir is a god, Buddha is a god. Then you can surrender easily. Whether a
Buddha is a god or not is irrelevant. Again, it is a device, it helps.

Buddha is known to have said that every truth is a device to help, every truth is just a utility. If it works,

it is true. And there is no other basis for calling it true or untrue -- if it works, it is true!

On the path of surrender, surrendering is the only technique. There are many techniques on the path of

will, because you can make many efforts to awaken yourself. But when one is just to surrender, there are no
methods.

One day a man came to Ramakrishna. He wanted to donate one thousand gold coins to Ramakrishna.

Ramakrishna said, "I don't need them, but when you have taken such a big burden from your house to
Dakshineshwar, to my hut, it will not be good to carry it back again. Mm? -- it will be unnecessary. So just
go to the Ganges and throw it in."

The man, of course, was in a very deep difficulty, great difficulty. What to do? He hesitated, so

Ramakrishna said, "You have donated them to me, now they do not belong to you. I order you! Go to the
Ganges and throw them!" So he had to.

He went to the Ganges but did not return. One hour passed. Ramakrishna asked someone, "Where has

that man gone? Go and find out!" So some disciples went and he was brought back. Ramakrishna asked,
"Such a long time? What were you doing?"

So the persons who had gone to find him said, "He was counting them and throwing one piece at a time

-- one, two, three -- one thousand pieces. He would look at a gold coin, count it and then he would throw it."
So Ramakrishna said, "What nonsense! When one is to throw, there is no need to count. When one
accumulates, there is a need to count; you have to know how many coins you have. But when you have
gone to throw them, why waste time in counting? You can just throw!"

Surrendering is throwing the ego. There is no counting and there are no methods. You just throw it. It

itself is the technique. On the path of surrender, surrender is the path and surrender is the technique. On the
path of will, will is the path and there are many techniques to work it out. But surrender is simple in a way.
You throw it! The moment you throw your ego -- and only the ego can be thrown -- suddenly you become
aware, aware of your inner center. You reach the same point, but through a very diverse path.

One thing more to be understood, and that has been asked: whether to be aware or to be lost in

something. Whenever I talk of surrender, I talk of being lost in something. A Meera dancing: she is not
aware that she is dancing -- she has become the dance. There is no gap. She has surrendered her ego
completely. There is dancing -- she is not aware; she is completely lost in it. When you are absorbed totally
then you are in surrender -- absorbed totally. But only the ego can be absorbed -- only the ego! And when
the ego is absorbed, the Self is there in its total purity.

But that is not the concern. On the path of surrender that is not the concern! Meera is not concerned with

awareness, with consciousness -- no. She is concerned with being completely unconscious in the Divine
dance or in the Divine song -- with being lost totally in it. To lose oneself totally.... That which cannot be
lost will be there, of course, but it is not the concern.

On the path of will, ego is not the concern -- the Self is. On the path of surrender, the Self is not the

concern. Remember this difference of emphasis, this difference of focusing. That's why there is so much
controversy, so much controversy, between a devotee and a yogi, a bhakta and a yogi. The yogi is on the
path of will and the bhakta is on the path of surrender, so they speak totally different languages. There is no
bridge. The yogi is trying to be, and the bhakta is trying not to be. The yogi is trying to be aware and the
bhakta is trying to be totally lost.

Of course, they are bound to speak diametrically opposite languages, and there is much controversy,

much argument. But those arguments and those controversies do not really belong to a real devotee or to a
real yogi: they belong to scholars. to academicians. Those who think about devotion and about yoga, they
go on discussing problems -- and then there is no meeting point because that meeting point is reached only
through experience. If you stick to the terms and the jargon used, then you will be confused.

A Chaitanya, a bhakta, cannot speak the language of Mahavir. They don't belong to the same path. They

reach to the same point ultimately, but they never travel the same path. So their experiences of the path are
bound to be different. The ultimate ecstasy will be the same, but that cannot be said; that is the problem.
The ult!mate experience will be the same, but that is inexpressible. And whatsoever is expressible is just
experiences on the path, and they are found to be difficult and opposite.

A Mahavir will become more and more centered on the path, more and more one Self. and Chaitanya

will be less and less oneself on the path. He will go on throwing himself unto the Divine feet. To Mahavir it
will look like suicide, and to Chaitanya, Mahavir's path will look a very egoistic thing.

Mahavir says there is no God, so don't surrender. Really, Mahavir denies God only to make surrender

impossible. If yoga proposes God as a device, Mahavir proposes no God, again as a device -- a device on
the path of will. If there is God, then you cannot proceed on the path of will. It is difficult, because if there
is a God then something is more potent than you, more powerful than you. Then something is more high
than you, so how can you be authentically your Self?

Mahavir says, "If there is a God, then I am bound to be always in bondage, because something is always

above me. And if you say God has created the world and God has created me, then what can I do? Then I
am just a puppet in his hands. Then where is the will? Then there is no possibility of will. There is only a
deep determinism. Then nothing can be done." So Mahavir dethrones God just as a device on the path of
will. "There is no God," Mahavir says. "You are the God and no one else is the God, so there is no need to
surrender."

Chaitanya uses going to the Divine feet -- sharanam -- as the basic religious effort. But Mahavir says

asharanam -- never to go anybody's feet. Of course, sharanam and asharanam -- to go and surrender to the
Divine feet, and never to go to anybody's feet because no feet except your own are Divine -- these are
completely, diametrically opposite standpoints. But just in the beginning and while on the path -- they reach
to the same thing. Either surrender your ego -- then you have not to do anything. You have to do only one
thing: surrender your ego. Then you have not to do anything. Then everything will begin to happen. If you
cannot surrender then you will have to do much, because then you are on your own to fight, struggle.

Both paths are valid, and there is no question of which is better. It depends on the person who is

following. It depends on your type. Every path is valid, and there are many subpaths, branches. Some
branches belong to the path of will, some to the path of surrender. Paths, subpaths -- everything is valid. But
for you not everything can be valid; only one thing can be valid -- mm? -- for you individually. So don't get
into confusion that: "Everything is valid so I can follow everything." You cannot follow! You have to
follow one path. There is no Truth; there are truths. But for you, one truth has to be chosen.

So the first thing for the seeker is to determine to what type he belongs, what he is, what will be good

for him, and what his inner inclination is. Can he surrender? Can you surrender? Can you efface your ego?
If that is possible, then simple surrender can do. But it is not so simple -- very difficult. To efface the ego is
not so simple. To put someone higher than you, to put someone as a God and then surrender -- very
difficult! Nietzsche has said: "I would like to be in hell if I can be the first there. I would not like to be in
heaven if I am put second to anyone there. To be in hell is good if one can be the first."

Bayazid was a great Sufi mystic. He had a big monastery and many seekers from many parts of the

world would come to him. One day a person came and he said, "I want to be here in your monastery. I want
to be one of your inmates."

Bayazid said to the man, "We have two types of inmates: one type who are disciples, another type who

are teachers. To which would you like to belong?"

The person had come to find Truth. He said, "Give me a little time to think about it."
So Bayazid said, "There is no need -- you have thought about it. Tell me!"
So he said, "It will be better if I can belong to the group of teachers."
He had come to seek, but he wanted to belong to the group of teachers, not to the disciples. So Bayazid

said, "That second group -- of teachers -- doesn't exist in my monastery Mm? -- that was just a trick. So you
can go. Your path is of the disciples, those who can surrender. So you are not for us and we are not for you."

The man said. "If that is the case, then I can belong to the disciples."
So Bayazid said, "No, there is no possibility. You will have to go."
If you can surrender, you can be a disciple. On the path of will, you are the teacher and you are the

disciple. On the path of surrender, you are the disciple. And sometimes this is really arduous.

Ebrahim, a king of Balkh, came to a Sufi Teacher and said. "I have renounced my kingdom -- now

accept me as your disciple!"

The Teacher said, "Before I accept you, you will have to pass through a certain test."

Ebrahim said, "I am ready -- but I cannot wait, so test me."
The Teacher said, "Go naked and make a round of your capital. And take one of my sandals and go on

beating on your head with it."

Those who were sitting there were just aghast An old man said to the Teacher, "What are you doing to

that poor man? He has renounced his kingdom. What more do you demand? What are you saying? And I
have never seen such things before! Not even you have demanded such things before!"

But the Teacher said, "This has to be fulfilled. Come back, and only then will I think about making you

my disciple."

Ebrahim undressed, took a sandal, began to beat on his head, and passed through the city. He came back,

and the Teacher bowed down to Ebrahim and touched his feet. He said, "You are already Enlightened."

And Ebrahim said, "I myself feel a sudden change. I am a different person. But how, miraculously, have

you changed me? The whole city was laughing -- I was just mad."

This is surrender. Then surrendering is enough. It is a sudden method, it can work in a moment, it can

explode you in a moment.

On the surface it looks easy -- that one has not to do anything, just to surrender. Then you do not know

what surrendering means. It can mean anything. If the Teacher says, "Jump into the sea!" then there should
be no hesitation. Surrendering means, "Now I am not -- now you are. Do whatsoever you like."

In Egypt there was a mystic, Dhun-Nun. When he was with his Teacher, he came to ask a certain

question. The Teacher said, "Unless I say to you, 'Ask,' don't ask, and wait." For twelve years Dhun-Nun
was waiting. He would come daily in the morning -- the first man to enter the hut of the Teacher. He would
sit there. Many, many others would come to ask and they would be answered. And the Teacher didn't say to
anyone again, "Wait!" It was too much. And that man Dhun-Nun was waiting -- for twelve years. He was
not allowed to ask. So that was the first thing he uttered, "I want to ask a certain question," and the Teacher
said, "You wait -- unless I tell you to ask, you cannot ask. Wait!"

For twelve years he waited. The Teacher wouldn't even look at him; the Teacher wouldn't even give any

hint that he was going to let him ask. He completely forgot that Dhun-Nun exists. And Dhun-Nun waited
day and night for twelve years. Then one day the Teacher moved to him and said, "Dhun-Nun -- but now
you need not ask. You had come to ask a certain question. Now I allow you, but I think now you need not
ask."

Dhun-Nun bowed, touched the Teacher's feet and said, "You have given me answer enough."
What had happened to Dhun-Nun? You cannot wait twelve years unless you have surrendered totally.

Then doubts are bound to arise -- whether you have become a madman, whether he has forgotten you
completely. And to no one else was the Teacher saying "Wait!" For twelve years, thousands and thousands
of people would come and ask and he would answer. And this would go on continuously, day after day, and
the man waited. It was a total trust. The Teacher said, "Now you need not ask."

And Dhun-Nun said, "There is no question left. These twelve years, what a miracle you did with me!

You did not even look at me. What a miracle! You did not even give a hint!"

Surrender means total trust. Then you are not needed. If you cannot give total trust, if you cannot

surrender, then the only way is the path of will. But don't be confused. I know so many people going around
and around confused. They would like something to happen to them just like what happens on the path of
surrender, but they are not ready to surrender. They would like to behave like a man of will and would like
something to happen as it happens on the path of surrender.

Only yesterday I received a letter, and I receive many letters like that. The letter-writer says, "I want to

learn much from you. but I cannot accept you as my Guru. I want to come and live with you, but I cannot
become your disciple." What is he saying? He wants to gain something just like one gains in surrender, but
he wants to be intact as far as his will is concerned. This is impossible! One has to choose -- and everything
is just a device.

Two or three days ago, some friends came and they said to me, "People call you God -- why do you

accept it?"

I told them, "It may be helpful to them. It is not your concern." They couldn't understand because for

them everything is a fact. Either it is or it is not. To me, everything is a device.

If someone has come to me to surrender, then a certain device is needed for him. And if someone has

come not to surrender, then that device is useless for him, it is meaningless. But be clear about what you are
and what you are trying to find out and how you want to find it out. Can you give up your ego? Then no
need of awareness. Then you need a deep absorption. Be absorbed -- dissolve! Don't be. Forget! Rather than

remembering, forgetting. Mm? -- I told you that Gurdjieff said remembering is the method. For Meera, for
Chaitanya, forgetting is the method: not SMRITI -- not remembering; but VISMRITI -- forgetting. Forget
yourself completely, efface yourself completely! And if that is not possible for you, then make every effort
to be awake. Then don't lose yourself in anything -- not even in music.

Mohammed was totally against music only because of this: on the path of will, music is a hindrance

because you can forget yourself in it. So don't forget yourself in anything, don't lose yourself. But then use
techniques to be more and more awake, more and more alert, more and more attentive, more and more
conscious.

And remember one thing: you cannot do both. If you are doing both, then you will be very much

confused -- and your effort will be wasted, and your energy will be unnecessarily dissipated. Choose, and
then stick to it. Only then can something happen. It is a long process and arduous. And there are no
shortcuts. All the shortcuts are deceptions. But because everyone is lethargic and everyone wants something
without doing anything, many shortcuts are invented. There is no shortcut!

It is reported that Euclid, who invented geometry, was also a teacher of Alexander. Euclid was teaching

Alexander mathematics. particularly geometry. Alexander said to Euclid, "Don't go on with this long
process. I am not an ordinary student. Find some shortcut!" Euclid didn't return again. One day passed, two
days, three, one week. Alexander inquired.

Euclid wrote a note saying: "There are no shortcuts. Whether you are an emperor or a beggar, there are

no shortcuts. And if you desire some shortcut, then I am not your teacher. Then you need someone who can
deceive you. I am not your teacher. So find someone else. Someone will come up who will say, 'No, I know
the shortcut.' But in knowledge there are no shortcuts. One has to go the long way."

So don't be deceived, and don't think that if you combine both paths then it will be good for you -- no.

Every system is perfect in itself, and the moment you combine it with something else, you destroy the
organic unity in it.

There are many, many persons who go on talking about a synthesis of religions -- which is nonsense!

Every religion is a perfect, organic whole. It need not be combined with anything else. If you combine, you
destroy everything. There may be similarities in the Bible and the Koran and the Vedas, but these are
superficial similarities. Deep down they each have a different organic unity of their own.

So then if one is a Christian, one should be one hundred percent a Christian. And if one is a Hindu, one

should be one hundred percent a Hindu. A fifty percent Hindu and a fifty percent Christian is just insane. It
is just like fifty percent ayurvedic medicine and fifty percent allopathic medicine. The person will go insane.
There is no synthesis between "pathies", and every religion is like a "pathy". It is a medicine. it is a science
-- every technique!

Because I have mentioned medicine, it will be good to finish, to conclude, that the path of will is just

like naturopathy -- you have to depend upon yourself. No help! The path of surrender is more like allopathy
-- you can use medicines.

Think of it in this way: when someone is ill, he has two things -- an inner, positive possibility of health

and an accidental or incidental phenomenon of disease, illness. Naturopathy is not concerned with illness
directly. Naturopathy is directly concerned with a positive growth of health. So grow in health! Naturopathy
means growing in health positively. When you grow in health, the disease will disappear by itself. You need
not be concerned with disease directly. Allopathy is not concerned with positive health at all. It is concerned
with the illness: destroy the illness and you will be healthy automatically.

The path of will is concerned with growing in positive awareness. If you grow, the ego will disappear --

that is the disease. The path of surrender is concerned with the disease itself, not with positive growth in
health. Destroy the disease -- surrender the ego -- and you will grow in health.

The path of surrender is allopathic and the path of will is naturopathic. But don't mix both, otherwise

you will be more ill. Then your effort to be healthy will create more problems for you. And everyone is just
confused. One goes on thinking that if you use many, many "pathies", of course, mathematically, you
should gain health sooner. Mathematically, logically, it may seem so, but it is not so really. You may even
become an impossible case.

The Ultimate Alchemy, Vol 1

Chapter #17

Chapter title: Towards a Total Flowering of Consciousness

6 June 1972 om in Bombay, India

Archive code: 7206063

ShortTitle: ULTAL117

Audio:

Yes

Video:

No

CHIDAAPTIH PUSHPAM
WHAT ARE THE FLOWERS FOR THE WORSHIP? -- TO BE FILLED WITH CONSCIOUSNESS.

Man is a seed, a possibility, a potentiality. Man is not only what he is -- he is also what he can be.

Whatsoever man is, it is just a situation, just an opening, just a becoming. Much is hidden, and the hidden
part is more than the manifested part. That's why I say man is a seed. He can grow, and man can be only if
he grows.

If a seed remains a seed, that means death. If a seed is not growing, then it is dying. And you cannot

remain in between. Either you have to grow or you have to die. There is no midpoint. Grow or die! There is
no other alternative. The seed is just a situation to grow. And to grow means to transcend, to grow means to
die on a particular level and to be reborn on another. what is growth for a seed? The seed must die as a seed
-- only then is the tree born. The possibility begins to become actual.

A seed can die in two ways. It can just die without growing; then it is negative death. Or, a seed can die

to grow; then it is positive death, and positive death is the door to more life. Positive death means dying for
something -- dying to grow, disappearing from one plane to appear on another. Man can remain a seed, and
many men die negative deaths without growing, without transcending themselves, without disappearing
from one plane to appear on another.

Nietzsche has said somewhere that man is only when he transcends himself: you are only when you are

disappearing from below and appearing above. It is a continuous process of dying to the material and being
born more conscious. But a seed can be satisfied and can remain satisfied to be a seed. It is even difficult for
a seed to conceive of what he can be. Even to dream about it seems impossible. How can a seed dream of
what he can be? Even to conceive of the possibility of being a tree will look just absurd. How can a seed be
a tree? Even if the tree is there just by the seed, the seed cannot conceive that this tree was once a seed, and
that "I also can be a tree."

Buddha has said, "I cannot give you Truth, but I can give you a dream. Look at me, and your

potentialities, your possibilities, will begin to stir. Something will begin to throb for the future; something
within you will begin to long for that which can be." A Buddha is a tree -- not only a tree, but a tree which
has come to flower. We are seeds. Think of man as a seed. Then what can be the flowering? For man's tree,
what can be the flowering? Flowers of consciousness, of course.
This sutra says:

WHAT ARE THE FLOWERS FOR WORSHIP? -- TO BE FILLED WITH CONSCIOUSNESS.

To be conscious totally -- to be conscious! To use the symbol of flower for consciousness is

multi-meaningful. It is not only a symbol -- because consciousness is factually a flowering in man. When
man flowers, comes to his omega point, suddenly there is a burst of flowering. That flowering is of

consciousness.

But man as he is is just a seed. He is not conscious, he is not a consciousness. This will be difficult and

very humiliating, because we go on thinking that we are conscious. And this is the most fatal belief --
dangerous, poisonous -- because if you think that you are already conscious, then there is no possibility for
you to flower. If a seed thinks and believes that it is already a tree, already flowering, then there is no
possibility for the seed to grow. It has deceived itself completely.

Gurdjieff has said that you are in a prison, but you can come to believe that you are not in a prison --

that this is your home. You can decorate your prison in such a way that it begins to look like your home.
You can even be proud of it, you can boast of it, your chains can become your ornaments. It depends on
you. You can interpret, and this interpreting is, in a way, very satisfying, because then there is no need to
fight against this imprisonment. Then you can be at ease. It is very convenient.

All human beliefs are conveniences, but dangerous. Because of them the possibility to evolve is

nullified completely, negated completely. The prisoner can think that he is not a prisoner, but already a free
man. This is convenient to believe because then there is no burden. But then this prisoner can never be free.
So Gurdjieff says that the first necessary step towards freedom is to recognize the humiliating fact that you
are a prisoner -- only then does growth become possible.

The first thing about this sutra that I would like to say to you is: Be completely aware that you are not

conscious. This is the first step towards awareness. You are not conscious at all; you live an unconscious
life. Whatsoever you are doing is a robot-like thing, mechanical. For example, you are listening to me. You
are listening to me but you are not aware of the fact that you are listening. Now you can become aware after
I have said it, but you were not previously. For a moment you can become aware that you are listening to
me, but only for a moment and then you will slip again into unconsciousness. And then you will listen to
me, but not as a conscious being; you will listen to me like a mechanical thing.

What is the difference? If you are listening to me, you are conscious of me, the speaker; you are not

conscious of the listener. Your consciousness is one-arrowed. The arrow is towards the speaker, and you are
just in the shadow. The light is focused towards the speaker and you are in darkness. For a moment, if I say
something about it, you can become conscious. But the moment you become conscious of the listener you
will become unconscious of the speaker. If you can become conscious of both, if you can have a
double-arrowed consciousness -- simultaneously aware of the speaker and the listener -- then you are
conscious.

When I say you are not conscious, I don't mean that sometimes there are not moments when you are not

conscious. Sometimes there are moments, but very few. And they show only the possibility, not the
actuality. It is just like if you jump and then again you are on the ground. You can defy the gravitation for a
single moment, and again you are under it. It is just like this. Sometimes, in particular situations, we jump
out of unconsciousness. For a single moment we are out of the pull of gravitation, but not really out of it
because the gravitation is working all the time and will bring you down again. But you can have a feeling of
freedom for a single moment; then again you are back on the ground.

In certain dangerous situations you become conscious. Someone has come to murder you: suddenly you

are conscious -- not only of the murderer, but also of yourself, the one who is to be murdered. Then the
consciousness is double-arrowed, but only for a single moment and again you are on the ground. Sometimes
in deep love you jump out of your unconsciousness. Then you are not only aware of your lover or beloved:
you are also aware of yourself -- but only for a single moment, then again you are back.

Suddenly, in some accident, in some deep, touching experience, on e becomes aware. But there are very

few such moments. You can count them on your fingers. In a long life of one hundred years you can have
certain experiences which can be counted on your fingers. They show only a possibility that you can be
conscious.

Ordinarily we exist as automata. And, really, we find it convenient to exist as automata: it is very

comfortable to exist as automata. You are more efficient when you work on mechanical lines. You need not
worry. Your body, your mind, works as a machine; it is efficient. And it is convenient not to be aware,
because to be aware will bring such a sensitivity about things around you that it is going to be painful.

To be a Buddha is not only blissful. It is blissful as far as Buddha himself is concerned. He comes to a

peak experience of bliss. But at the same time he has to pay very dearly, because he becomes so sensitive
that everything around him gives him pain. He suffers because of others' suffering. A beggar meets you: you
pass him unconsciously; there is no problem, it is very convenient. If you become conscious, then it is not
so convenient. Then you are bound to come to realize that you have a hand in it, you are part of this ugly

world. You are responsible for all that is, whether it is a Vietnam war or a Hindu-Mohammedan riot or
poverty. Whatsoever is there, if you become conscious you become responsible. It is difficult now to
escape. This is the cost to be paid.

So never think that Buddha is just bliss. No one can be. Everyone has to pay a cost, and the greater the

experience, the greater the cost is going to be. A Buddha is peaceful, blissful in himself. He comes to this
bliss because of being so conscious. But simultaneously, because of so much consciousness, he becomes
sensitive to everything that goes on around him -- he suffers for it.

So it is convenient to exist as unconscious beings. We go on, we prolong, being sleepy. It is a deep

somnambulism. We go on walking, doing things profoundly asleep. Nothing touches us; we are absolutely
insensitive. Sensitivity depends on consciousness. The more conscious you are, the more sensitive; the less
conscious, the less sensitive. And to be sensitive is dangerous. To be non-sensitive is convenient -- so you
can move like a dead block, you need not be concerned.

Because of this convenience, we remain seeds. To me, to lose this convenience, to throw this

convenience, is the only renunciation. Really, this is the comfort to be thrown -- not a house, not a family;
they are nothing. This convenience-oriented mind is to be thrown. One has to be sensitive and vulnerable to
whatsoever there is; only then can you become conscious.

So the first thing to be understood is why we go on remaining unconscious. There is a reason for it; it

has a rationale -- because it is convenient. To live a dead life is convenient, to move like a dead corpse is
convenient, because then you are not affected, you are not concerned. You have a routine to work and to do
from morning to evening. You move in a circle; throughout your life you go on moving in your old pattern.
The older the pattern, the less the inconvenience. Ultimately, you are settled in it.

Look at this attitude! If this attitude persists you are not going to transcend the seed. When a seed is

transcended it is calling for dangers. A seed is protected, but a plant is not so protected. A plant is always in
danger; a seed is never in danger. A seed lives a dead life, but a plant becomes alive, delicate, unprotected.
It is dangerous!

A child in his mother's womb is totally protected. The womb is the most comfortable place to be found

anywhere -- no worry, no struggle for survival; a completely relaxed state. Psychologists say, and they say
rightly, that this hankering after peace, equilibrium, harmony, is really a remembering of the womb state --
because a child in the womb is just in heaven.

Hindus have a myth of a wish-fulfilling tree -- kalptaru -- in heaven. Under that tree, kalptaru, the

wish-fulfilling tree, there is no gap between demand and supply. You demand, and there is supply -- no time
gap. You desire, and it is fulfilled.

The womb is a wish-fulfilling tree. There is no gap between wish and fulfillment. The child has not even

to desire. whatsoever is needed is fulfilled -- no effort, no desire, no tension. The child is in perfect moksha.
And if we were to ask a child to leave the womb and come out, if it were up to him, no child would be born.
It is dangerous! It is taking a very dangerous step! Going out of the womb is going out of heaven. It is being
thrown out of the Garden of Eden. Now everything is going to be a struggle. Now demand and supply are
not going to meet so easily and desires cannot be fulfilled so easily. Now there will always be a gap
between the desire and its fulfillment. And even when it is fulfilled, it is not going to be a fulfillment --
because through its fulfillment many other desires will have been born meanwhile. So it is going to be a
constant struggle.

So if it is up to a child to decide whether to leave the womb or not, no child will leave. It is very

comfortable -- absolutely comfortable. But it is a dead existence. No growth is possible. Growth is possible
only when you choose dangers consciously. When you move on unknown paths, you grow. when you take
risks, you grow. Just like this, man is again in a womb -- the womb of the unconscious. Mm? Try to
understand this: the womb of the unconscious. To leave it is a second birth.

In India we call the person who was born again "twice-born" -- dwij. The Brahmins were called

twice-born only because of this: that the first birth is the birth out of the womb of the mother, and the
second is the birth out of the womb of your own unconscious. And unless you are born out of your
unconscious and become conscious, you are not a Brahmin. If you are not conscious, you are not a Brahmin.
"Brahmin" means one who knows the Brahma, the Ultimate. If you are perfectly conscious, you come in
contact with the Ultimate: you become a Brahmin. This second birth is out of your own unconscious.

What is this unconscious? Freud has said that a man is just like an iceberg: ninety percent under water

and only ten percent above it -- nine parts hidden under water and only one part, one tenth, above it. Man is
an iceberg! Only one part is conscious, nine parts are unconscious, and that one part, one tenth, is impotent

against the other nine. The greater part is unconscious; only a very small fraction is conscious. That's why
you are always pulled by the unconscious, manipulated, maneuvered. You may go on thinking that you are
the deciding factor -- you are not! The unconscious, hidden mind always decides.

You fall in love. Is it your decision? Is it your conscious decision? Are you in love consciously? You

say, "It happened." What does it mean: "It happened"? It means some unconscious forces within you are
pulling you. You are just a puppet. That's why, if it has happened, suddenly one day it disappears again.
What can you do? You were just a victim; you were never asked. And not only with love: penetrate deep
into whatsoever you think, you do, you feel, and you will come to the conclusion that some unknown force
goes on manipulating you. You are not. You may deceive yourself that these are your decisions -- they are
not.

You decide not to be angry, and then there is anger. everyone has felt the impotence of his own

decisions. Every moment you feel it. You decide not to do this, and in spite of yourself, you have to do it.
Then you go on creating rationalizations. Those rationalizations are again conveniences. You decide not to
be angry and you are angry. Then one possibility is that you will go deep, dig deep within yourself and
come to a conclusion that you are not capable of deciding anything -- you don't have the power to decide,
you have no power, you are absolutely impotent.

But this is humiliating, so one never goes to the root -- one begins to rationalize. One says, "I had to be

angry because it is going to help the person. I had to be angry to change the person. I had to be angry for
righteous reasons." Then you create a myth that this is your decision. You are deceiving yourself! find out
whether you have rally ever decided anything. Has anything ever been your decision? The conscious part of
the mind is absolutely impotent. The unconscious is so much -- nine times more. Your conscious is nothing
but an instrument in the hands of the unconscious. So go on deciding whatsoever you like in the conscious.
The unconscious is not a bit worried. Whatsoever is to be done is to be done by the unconscious, and when
it needs to do it, the conscious is just impotent.

But one has to dig into oneself. This unconsciousness is your womb. You have to grow out of it,

transcend it. Otherwise, you are bound to be a slave, you can never be a master; and you are bound to
remain just an egg -- a seed. You cannot be a tree which can flower. Then the flowering can never be for
you.

First begin to feel what this unconscious is, where it is. This is a good start -- to be conscious of the

unconscious, to be conscious of one's own imprisonment, of one's being a seed. Don't deceive yourself!
Don't go on thinking that you are this and that. find out what you really are. Don't create an image.

Gurdjieff has reported a story. He said there was a magician who had many sheep. Every day a sheep

was to be murdered, killed for his food. And there were many sheep. They would see that every day a sheep
is killed, but they would never rebel, they would never go against him. Some visitor was staying with the
magician, so the visitor said, "This is a miracle! Every day a sheep is chosen, killed before other sheep, and
they have not yet become aware that their day is also to come soon. They can escape! They can revolt!"

The magician laughed and he said, "there is a trick. I have hypnotized all the h`sheep. All the sheep are

hypnotized, and I have told them in their hypnosis: 'You are not a sheep. You are not a sheep at all. All the
others are sheep, but you are not. You are a lion!' So every sheep believes that he is a lion and that every
other sheep is just a sheep. So when a sheep is killed no one is bothered, because they are all lions in their
own images."

This is a good story. This is the story of the human mind. You go on thinking about what you are not

and you go on deceiving yourself about what you are. To recognize the "facticity" of what one is, is the
beginning. And that is the only right beginning. So recognize first that your working is unconscious, not
conscious. Your love, your hate, your anger, your friends, your foes, they are all part of your unconscious.
You are not a conscious being. You have only a very minute part of consciousness. That's why this can be
understood: that you are not a conscious being.

If a madman can be taught that he is mad, that means that a part of his mind is still not insane. If a

madman can realize that he is mad, that means a part of the mind is not yet mad. But you cannot convince
any madman that he is mad. And if you can convince a madman that he is mad, it means you are wrong. He
is not mad. At least a part of the mind is still sane. So if you can come to realize that you are an unconscious
being, this is good news. It shows that a part is conscious -- a very minute part, a very small fragment. But
that fragment can be used now.

You can use it in two ways: either in rationalizing that you are already conscious; that's what we are

doing. Or, in digging deep and realizing that we are unconscious. That minute part of consciousness, that

one-tenth part of the human iceberg, can be used in two ways: one is to go on rationalizing, thinking,
imagining, dreaming, that you are a conscious human being; this is what we are doing. Or, you can use it in
digging within and recognizing that you are not conscious at all. This is what a seeker is expected to do.

And once you begin to feel that you are not conscious, consciousness has dawned on you. You are on

the path. Now much can be done! Once you realize that you are imprisoned and that "this is not my home
but a prison", now something can be done so that you can break out, escape. Now devices can be used, now
something can be arranged. Now some contact can be made outside the prison. Now the guard can be bribed
or something can be done. But nothing can be done if you go on thinking that you are not in the prison, that
it is your house, that the prison guard is your watchman and he is in your service. And if you were really
born into a prison, it would look like that -- as if everyone is in your service. The whole prison
establishment seems to be in your service if you were born into the prison. How can you think that this is a
prison?

To realize this, that this is a prison, is the first basic step for going out, because then something can be

done. So you are unconscious. And this is not a theory -- mm? -- this is a simple fact. And this is not a
theology: this is simple science. It is not concerned with religions and their hypothetical mythologies. Now
it is a fact of science. That was the reason Freud was despised so much, condemned so much.

They say there have been three revolutions. One was the Copernican. Copernicus said that the earth is

not the center of the universe and the sun is not going around the earth, but the earth is moving around the
sun. The earth was deposed, the earth was dethroned. It was very humiliating to man's mind, because when
the earth was the center, man was the center of the universe. Everything was moving around man and man's
earth. Suddenly earth was not in the center at all -- not only not in the center, but it was even not a very
significant star. It was negligible, as if not. The earth was found to be moving around the sun, and the sun --
our sun itself -- was found to be moving around some greater sun, so we were not the center.

Then came Darwin, and he said man is related not to the Divine but to the animals. He is not a

descendant of God, but linked with apes, baboons, chimpanzees. He is a link in a long animal process. This
was the second revolution -- a very humiliating one, very ego-destroying. The earth was not the center, and
man was not just below the angels -- he was just a bit above the animals and nothing more, and even that
"above" was not certain. Man was dethroned, deposed. He was just an animal.

And then came the third revolution, that of Freud, who said you are not a conscious being -- you are just

in the hands of unconscious forces. So Aristotle was absolutely wrong according to Freud, because he said
man is a rational being. Man is not! Man is the most irrational animal. Dogs are more rational. All other
animals are more rational in the sense that they are predictable. Man is unpredictable -- most irrational! You
cannot depend on him, because reason is a mathematical thing. If a dog has behaved in a certain way you
can predict he will go on behaving this way. You cannot predict man.

And, moreover, he is not rational, because his whole working of the mind is unconscious. He falls in

love, he fights, he goes to war, he goes on accumulating money, he goes on being worried without any
rationality in it. He is the most mad animal. Only one thing is certain about him which is exceptional, and
that is that he believes certain things about himself which are not. That is the only exceptional thing about
man.

Animals are down to earth. They don't have any fictions; they are what they are. Man is a dreaming

animal; he can dream, and he can believe in his dreams. He can auto-hypnotize himself, and he can be
convinced that whatsoever he is imagining is true. So now it is not simply a religious matter to say that man
is unconscious. It is now founded on scientific facts.

Indian psychology is very much older than the Western. In the West, psychology is just a child. Really,

Freud is the father, so only this century has given birth to psychology. But with India, it is a long-standing
science. Patanjali is a psychologist and Buddha is a psychologist and Kapil is a psychologist. And it will be
good to look at them as psychologists rather than as religious persons, because then different dimensions
become clear and then you can really understand what they are saying.

Buddha says that only awareness can make you a man; otherwise you are just an animal. The very word

"Buddha" means the "Awakened One". That was not his name. His name was Gautam siddharth, but
Gautam Siddharth was an unconscious being. When Gautam Siddharth became conscious, then he was
called the Buddha, the awakened One. Buddha, when he became totally conscious, said -- not anything
about God, not anything about moksha, not anything about Nirvana -- he is reported to have said, "Now I
am awake. I was asleep; hitherto, I was asleep. Now I am awake!"

Mahavir's name is "Jin". From that word "Jin" the name of "Jain" is derived. "Jin" means "the

conqueror". Mahavir said, "I was asleep. Then I was a slave of the unconscious. Now I have become a
conqueror, a Jin, because now there is no unconscious to enslave me." All the sutras of Patanjali are just a
technology, techniques, to produce more consciousness. The whole of yoga is concerned with how to
produce more consciousness in man.

For the East this has been a long-standing fact, a recognized fact, that man is asleep. But now Western

science recognizes the fact also. So what to do? If man is unconscious? How to make him conscious? How
to make him awake? The first thing is to recognize the fact of unconsciousness in yourself. It is not difficult
to recognize that man is unconscious. That is not difficult, because then you are not included. Then "man" is
unconscious, not you. But when I say "man is unconscious", I mean you, not humanity.

There exists no humanity, only man -- man A, man B, man C. There exists no humanity -- only

individuals. "Humanity" is just a collective name. you are unconscious. Listen to this fact with a
double-arrowed consciousness. I repeat: you are unconscious! Don't rationalize it and don't deceive yourself.
Whatsoever you are doing, remember that this is the unconscious working.

Suddenly you have become sexual; remember, this is the unconscious. Now the unconscious is forcing

you towards certain acts. don't fight because the fight is also unconscious. Because the society has said,
"Sex is bad, evil, sin," that has gone deep into the unconscious. So the unconscious has two parts: one is
biological; another is sociological. Instincts are there and social taboos. The society has put many things
into your unconscious. They call it "conscience". Certain things are "bad"; certain things are "good". They
have forced them into your unconscious.

That's why, if you teach any morality to a child before seven years of age, only then can your teaching

succeed. After seven years of age you cannot succeed. That's why every religion is much concerned with
children, and every religion has an establishment. Through parents, through family, they condition the mind
-- when the mind is totally unconscious. Not even a single part is conscious, so there is no resistance.
Whatsoever you say to the child, it goes deep into the unconscious. There is no resistance. Once a child is
grown, then it is difficult to penetrate into the unconscious.

So whatsoever one learns in the first seven years becomes the background. Then whatsoever you do in

your life, even if you go against the society which has trained you and given you your conscience, you will
not really be able to go against it. Even in going against it, you will follow the instructions put into the
unconscious. Even to rebel against a certain thing is to remain attached to it.

If humanity is to be saved from so-called religious dogmas, it must be made criminal to teach them to

children. Don't teach children any creeds, dogmas, fanatic beliefs -- don't teach them! Let them grow first.
When they become adult, only then -- but then it is very difficult. Then the conscious mind has come into
existence. It begins to choose and think.

One part is biological, hereditary; another is sociological. There is sex: become aware that the

unconscious instinct is forcing your body mechanism towards a particular object, towards a particular act.
But don't fight it because that fight is again, from the sociological part of the unconscious which says that
sex is sin. Be aware of both, be conscious of both: there is sex, and there is the concept that sex is sin. Both
are coming from some place you don't know -- from a deep darkness within. Be conscious -- don't do
anything! Just remain conscious. Try to be in an alert state. Don't fight with the sex, don't condemn it --
don't go to indulge in it. Simply remain conscious of the fact that something is happening inside. If you can
remain conscious of the fact that something is happening inside. If you can remain with the fact without
dong anything, you will feel that your consciousness is growing and penetrating the dark realm of the
unconscious.

Anger has come to you: don't do anything for or against it. Don't indulge in it, don't suppress it --

meditate on it. Close your eyes and meditate on the fact of anger. when I say meditate, many things have to
be understood. Don't judge. Don't say anger is bad; don't say it is good. don't do anything. Anger is there
just like when a snake has come in the room -- just be aware. Is the snake a god to be worshipped? No! Is
the snake an enemy to be killed? No! Just be aware that the snake has come. Use this snake as an object for
being aware.

Just like this anger has flashed within you -- be aware, be conscious, remain alert, and don't do anything!

Just remain alert, because the moment you begin to do anything you cannot remain alert. You have such a
small quantity of energy that if you begin to act that energy moves into action. Don't do anything. Be silent
and quiet -- alert. Use your total energy capacity to be just alert to the fact that the anger is there. And
suddenly you will become aware that the focus of your consciousness is growing -- you are penetrating into
the unconscious. Your light of the conscious is going deep into darkness. And the more you penetrate into

the darkness of the unconscious, the more conscious you are.

This is a long effort, arduous; arduous because it will create very deep inconvenience. You will feel very

uneasy. Try, and you will come to know. You can do two things. either you can act out your anger -- it is
easy, you are relieved. whatsoever the consequence may be, for the moment you are relieved; you are
relieved of an inner unconscious tension. Or you can fight with your anger. If you fight with it, then again
you are relieved because in fighting anger the same energy is being used which is used in being angry.

Remember this, that one who is fighting with his anger is really changing only the object. I am angry

with you. I was going to fight with you, but I turn this whole fight against my own anger, I invert it. I was
going to fight with you, but I am a moral man, I am a saint, I am a religious man, so I cannot fight with you.
But I have to fight with someone, so I fight with myself, I fight against my anger. The same energy and the
same release will happen. I have fought, and there will be a deep satisfaction.

The so-called satisfaction seen on so-called saints' faces is nothing but a deep satisfaction from fighting

and winning. And really, it is more cunning, because to fight with someone is to create a long series of
consequences. If you become both, if you divide yourself in two -- the good one who never becomes angry,
and the bad one, the unconscious one, who gets angry -- if you divide yourself in two, you can fight forever.
Outwardly you will become a saint, but inwardly you are just a volcano, just a deep turmoil and nothing else
-- a disease inside, a constant conflict.

Those who fight with sex will have to fight continuously with sex; those who fight with anger will have

to fight with anger continuously. It is a constant fight. There is no silence within -- there cannot be. That's
why we divide ourselves into two: the bad one and the good one. You have two parts within you.
Remember, the bad one is the unconscious and the good one is the conscious. And once you take your
unconscious as the enemy, you can never change and transform it. Then there can be no mutation -- because
the unconscious is not the enemy. That is your energy, your source, your biological source of energy. You
can never be healthy divided in yourself -- you will become a disease.

Don't fight, don't indulge. Both are easy. Both are easy! The only thing which is very uncomfortable and

uneasy, is to remain alert. The whole mechanism of habit will force you to do something: "What are you
doing? Do something! Anything will do, but do something!" This habit has to be broken. So the first thing is
to recognize and realize that you are unconscious. The second thing is that whenever the conscious begins
to manipulate you, be aware, and remain aware and alert. A very simple, passive alertness is needed.

If you are alert, two things happen: the energy that was going to be used as indulgence or as suppression

will become part of your alertness. Your alertness will be strengthened through that energy. That energy
will move to your alertness; you will become more alert. That energy will become a fuel to your
consciousness. You will be more conscious, and for the first time the unconscious will not be able to force
you. For the first time unconsciousness will be incapable of manipulating you. And once you know the
feeling of this freedom, that the unconscious cannot manipulate you -- without any fight, without any
struggle, without any conflict -- then your consciousness has become stronger.

And, by and by, the filed of consciousness will grow and the field of unconsciousness will shrink. your

human iceberg will have gained one part more: you will be two parts conscious, eight parts unconscious.
This is a long journey, and by and by you will become three parts conscious, seven parts unconscious. As
you gain more it is just like reclaiming land from the ocean. The unconscious is a vast ocean; you have to
reclaim land inch by inch. But the moment you reclaim land, the ocean shrinks back. A day comes, just like
it came to a Buddha or to a Jesus, when you are conscious all the ten parts and the unconscious has
disappeared. You are just light inside and no darkness.

This is the flowering. And for the first time you become aware of your immortality. for the first time you

are not now a seed. For the first time now for you there is no becoming -- you have become a being. If this
expression can be allowed: You have become a being! Now you are a being!

In this enlightened state of being, there is no suffering, no conflict, no misery. You are filled with bliss.

Inside you are bliss, outside you are compassion. You have become sensitive to everything. Because of that
sensitivity, a Buddha is compassion outside; inside a deep silent pool of bliss and outside a compassion.
Buddha's lips are smiling with a deep bliss, and his eyes are filled with tears -- in a deep compassion.

That's why you can work both ways. If you grow in consciousness, you will grow in compassion; if you

grow in compassion, you will grow in consciousness. But to grow in compassion is very difficult -- because
you can again deceive. So the only right path is to grow in consciousness, then compassion comes as a
shadow. Otherwise you can deceive and your compassion can just be a facade, a deception. Your
compassion can again be an unconscious act. Then it is sentimental, emotional -- not existential. Then you

can weep, you can sympathize and you can serve. But this is going to be again an unconscious thing. The
surest and most certain path is to grow in consciousness.

This sutra says, "What are the flowers for the worship? -- to be filled with consciousness." And when

you have flowered into consciousness, only then can you be accepted. Then and only then do you enter the
temple of the divine -- not with flowers, but with your own flowering. Then you have become a flower.

Every one of you must have seen Buddha sitting on a flower, Vishnu sitting on a flower, Ram standing

on a flower, but you might not have understood the symbol. Those flowers simply say, "These are flowered
human beings. They have come to a deep flowering."

You might have heard that the seventh chakra in yoga is sahasrardal kamal -- the one-thousand-petalled

lotus on the seventh chakra in your head. That seventh chakra is the last stage, the peak, the Everest of
consciousness. The first chakra is muladhar -- the sex center, and the last chakra is sahasrar. Sex is the
most unconscious thing in you, and the sahasrar is the most conscious. These are the two poles.

We live around the sex center, move around it. Whatsoever we do is related with sex, howsoever distant

it may look. Your earning money, your accumulating wealth, may not look at all related with sex, but they
are related. The more wealth you have, the more sex you can have; it becomes more possible. The more
power you have, the more sex you can have; it becomes more possible.

You may forget completely, and ends may become means and means may become ends; that's another

thing. One person can go on accumulating wealth for his whole life, and he may completely forget for what
he is doing it. But every power search is for sex. We move around the center of sex, we are bound to
because unless we grow in consciousness we cannot go beyond it. That is the most unconscious-rooted
center, the lowest, and for that reason the deepest and the most unconscious.

The higher you move in consciousness, the further you go from sex. And then there is a flowering of a

different type. The whole energy moves to the seventh -- sahasrar. And when the whole energy comes to
the seventh chakra, it becomes a flower -- one-thousand-petalled. Mm? -- this is a beautiful imagery. It
means with unlimited, infinite petals, the flower opens.

This sutra is not just a symbol -- really, no symbol is just a symbol -- it indicates a reality. And

whenever you come to the state of Samadhi, to the seventh chakra state of consciousness, you have a subtle
sense of flowering inside, as if something has burst open. Now you are not a bud -- you are a flower. Come
with this flower to the Divine temple: this is the meaning of this sutra. Flowers purchased from the market
will not do. I say "purchased from the market", because now even to grow them has become impossible. It
seems that flowers grow in shops, they are produced.

Purchased flowers will not do; outside flowers will not do. Your own flowering is needed, and only that

can be accepted. This is arduous, long, but not impossible. It is the only challenge for man; all else is just
childish stupidity. To be fully conscious is the only challenge! To go to the moon, to move to some further
star, is all childish -- because you can go to the moon but you remain the same, you remain the seed. Unless
you become a flower, you have not moved. With an inner flowering, you mutate, you change, you are born
anew.

Effort is needed, much effort is needed. And if -- and this is a big IF -- IF you are ready to take the first

step, the last is not very far. But the IF is concerned with the first. If you have taken the first step, half the
journey is completed. The first is the most difficult. To recognize that you are unconscious is very
ego-destroying; it is very shattering, shocking. But if one is ready to take this shock and welcome it, the last
step is not very far.

Really, Krishnamurti has said that the first step is the last. Mm? It is in a way, because one who takes

the first will take the last. Mahavir has said that if you have taken the first you have reached, because for
one who is ready to take the first there is no problem. The journey has started.

To start is always difficult. To reach is not so difficult because one has to move only one step at a time.

A thousand-mile journey is completed only by taking one step at a time. No one needs to take two steps
simultaneously; no one is required to. If you have taken the first step you have taken one step, and only one
step is the needed thing. Now go on taking one and one added to one, and you can complete a thousand-mile
journey. We are all sitting only thinking and brooding about the first step. Some are just brooding, some are
dreaming that they have taken the first step already.

Someone was here to meet me a few days before. He said, "I am very much advanced, so don't start with

me from A-B-C."{ This is the mad type of man.

So I asked, "First relate to me how much you have advanced. What have you gained?"
So he said, "I see visions of Krishna. Sometimes I dance with him in my visions. I have visions of very

beautiful places -- lakes, hills."

Whatsoever he said was just dreaming, so I said, "If this is what you mean when you say that you have

advanced very much, then it is very difficult to even proceed because you are simply dreaming. You have
not even taken the first step."

The first is the most difficult: to recognize this, let this fact penetrate deep. Howsoever painful, welcome

it -- only then can something be done. If you recognize it you will become humble, if you recognize it you
will become simple, if you recognize it you will become childlike -- then there is much possibility, then
much opens.

And then the second step: be conscious. Whatsoever happens in the inner mind, be conscious about it.

Don't act! Don't be in a hurry to act. Remain with the fact -- alert. And see that this alertness works
miraculously. It is a miracle. Observe the unconscious, and there is a sudden change. The quality, the very
quality of the mind changes the moment you become an observer inside, a consciousness inside. The very
quality of mind changes! The seed is broken asunder and the plant is born.

Of course, it is delicate, very delicate. And one has to protect it continuously for many, many days, for

many, many years and sometimes for many, many lives. ut once begun, once the seed is broken, the plant
will become a tree -- and one day there is flowering.

That flowering is the concern of religion. To make man a flower is the whole concern of religion.

The Ultimate Alchemy, Vol 1

Chapter #18

Chapter title: The Light of Awareness

6 June 1972 pm in

Archive code: 7206065

ShortTitle: ULTAL118

Audio:

Yes

Video:

No

OSHO, WE FEEL THAT TO PENETRATE AND TRANSFORM THE DEEPER LAYERS OF THE
UNCONSCIOUS ONLY THROUGH AWARENESS IS DIFFICULT AND NOT ENOUGH. WHAT ELSE
SHOULD ONE DO OTHER THAN THE PRACTICE OF AWARENESS? PLEASE EXPLAIN MORE ABOUT
THE PRACTICAL DIMENSIONS ON THIS MATTER.

THE UNCONSCIOUS can be transformed only through awareness. It is difficult, but there is no other

way. There are many methods for being aware, but awareness is necessary. You can use methods to be
aware, but you will have to be aware.

If someone asks whether there is any method to dispel darkness except by light, howsoever difficult it

may be that is the only way -- because darkness is simply the absence of light. So you have to create the
presence of light, and then darkness is not there.

Unconsciousness is nothing but an absence -- the absence of consciousness. It is not something positive

in itself, so you cannot do anything except be aware. If unconsciousness were something in its own right,
then it would be a different matter -- but it is not. Unconsciousness doesn't mean something; it only means
not consciousness. It is just an absence. It has no existence in itself; in itself it is not. The word
"unconscious" simply shows the absence of consciousness and nothing else. When we say "darkness" the
word is misleading, because the moment we say "darkness" it appears that darkness is something that is

there. It is not, so you cannot do anything with darkness directly -- or can you?

You may not have observed the fact, but with darkness you cannot do anything directly. Whatsoever

you want to do with darkness you will have to do with light, not with darkness. If you want darkness, then
put off light. If you don't want darkness, then put on light. But you cannot do anything directly with
darkness; you will have to go via light.

Why? Why can you not go directly? You cannot go directly because there is nothing like darkness, so

you cannot touch it directly. You have to do something with light, and then you have done something with
darkness.

If light is there, then darkness is not there. If light is not there, then darkness is there. You can bring

light into this room, but you cannot bring darkness. You can take light out from this room, but you cannot
take darkness out from this room. There exists no connection between you and darkness. Why? If darkness
were there then man could be related somehow, but darkness is not there.

Language gives you a fallacy that darkness is something. Darkness is a negative term. It exists not. It

connotes only that light is not there -- nothing more -- and the same is with unconsciousness. So when you
ask what to do other than to be aware, you ask an irrelevant question. You will have to be aware; you cannot
do anything else.

Of course, there are many methods for being aware -- mm? -- that is a different thing. There are many

ways to create light -- but light will have to be created. You can create a fire and there will be no darkness.
And you can use a kerosene lamp and there will be no darkness, and you can use electricity and there will
be no darkness. But whatsoever the case, whatsoever the method of producing light, light has to be
produced.

So light is a must, and whatsoever I will say in reference to this question will be about methods to

produce awareness. They are not alternatives, remember. They are not alternatives to awareness -- nothing
can be. Awareness is the only possibility for dispelling darkness, for dispelling unconsciousness. But how to
create awareness? I talked about one method which is the purest: to be aware inside of whatsoever happens
on the boundary line of the unconscious and to the conscious -- to be aware there.

Anger is there. Anger is produced in darkness; anger has roots in the unconscious. Only branches and

leaves come into the conscious. Roots, seeds, the energy source, are in the unconscious. You become aware
only of faraway branches. Be conscious of these branches. The more conscious you are, the more you will
be capable of looking into darkness.

Have you observed at any time that if you look deeply in darkness for a certain time, a certain dim light

begins to be there? If you concentrate in darkness, you begin to feel and you begin to see. You can train
yourself, and then in darkness itself there is a certain amount of light -- because, really, in this world
nothing can be absolute and nothing is. Everything is relative. When we say "darkness", it doesn't mean
absolute darkness. It only means that there is less light. If you practise to see in it, you will be capable of
seeing, Look! Focus yourself in the darkness! And then, by and by, your eyes are strengthened and you
begin to see.

Inner darkness, unconsciousness, is the same. Look into it. But you can look only if you are not active.

If you begin to act, your mind is distracted. Don't act inside. Anger is there -- don't act, don't condemn, don't
appreciate, don't indulge in it, and don't suppress it. Don't do anything -- just look at it! observe it!
Understand the distinction.

What happens ordinarily is quite the reverse. If you are angry, then your mind is focused on the cause of

anger outside -- always! Someone has insulted you -- you are angry. Now there are three things: the cause of
anger outside, the source of anger inside, and in between these two you are. Anger is your energy inside, the
cause which has provoked your energy to come up is outside, and you are in between. The natural way of
the mind is not to be aware of the source, but to be focused on the cause outside. Whenever you are angry
you are in deep concentration on the cause outside.

Mahavir has called KRODHA -- anger -- a sort of meditation. He has named it ROUDRA DHYAN --

meditation on negative attitudes. It is! -- because you are concentrated. Really, when you are in deep anger
you are so concentrated that the whole world disappears. Only the cause of anger is focused. Your total
energy is on the cause of anger, and you are so much focused on the cause that you forget yourself
completely. That's why in anger you can do things about which, later on, you can say, "I did them in spite of
myself." You were not.

For awareness you have to take an about-turn. You have to concentrate not on the cause outside, but on

the source inside. Forget the cause. Close your eyes, and go deep and dig into the source. Then you can use

the same energy which was to be wasted on someone outside -- the energy moves inwards. Anger has much
energy. Anger is energy -- the purest of fires inside. Don't waste it outside.

Take another example. You are feeling sexual: sex is again energy, fire. But whenever you feel sexual,

again you are focused on someone outside, not on the source. you begin to think of someone -- of the lover,
of the beloved, A-B-C-D -- but when you are filled with sex your focus is always on the other. You are
dissipating energy.

Not only in the sexual act do you dissipate energy, but in sexual thinking you dissipate it even more

because a sexual act is a momentary thing. It comes to a peak, the energy is released, and you are thrown
back. But sexual thinking can continuously be there. You can continue it in sexual thinking, you can
dissipate energy. And everyone is dissipating energy. Ninety percent of our thinking is sexual. Whatsoever
you are doing outside, inside sex is a constant concern -- you may not even be aware of it.

You are sitting in a room and a woman enters: your posture changes suddenly. Your spine is moire

erect, your breathing changes, your blood pressure is different. You may not be aware at all of what has
happened, but your whole body has reacted sexually. you were a different person when the woman was not
there; now again you are a different person.

An all-male group is a different group, and all-female group is a different group. Let one male come in

or one female, and the whole group, the whole energy pattern, changes suddenly. You may not be conscious
of it, but when your mind is focused on someone, your energy begins to flow. when you feel sexual, look at
the source, not at the cause -- remember this.

Science is more concerned with the cause and religion is more concerned with the source. The source is

always inside; the cause is always outside. With cause you are in a chain reaction. With cause you are
connected with your environment. With source you are connected with yourself. So remember this. This is
the purest method to change unconscious energy into conscious energy. Take an about-turn -- look inside! It
is going to be difficult because our look has become fixed. We are like a person whose neck is paralyzed,
and who cannot move and look back. Our eyes have become fixed. We have been looking outside for lives
together -- for millennia -- so we don't know how to look inside.

Do this: whenever something happens in your mind, follow it to the source. Anger is there -- a sudden

flash has come to you -- close your eyes, meditate on it. From where is this anger arising? Never ask the
question: who has made it possible? who has made you angry? That is a wrong question. Ask which energy
in you is transforming into anger -- from where is this anger coming up, bubbling up, what is the source
inside from where this energy is coming?

Are you aware that in anger you can do something which you cannot do when you are not in anger? A

person in anger can throw a big stone easily. When he is not angry he cannot even lift it. He has much
energy when he is angry. A hidden source is now with him. So if a man is mad, he becomes very strong.
Why? From where is this energy coming? It is not coming from anything outside. Now all his sources are
burning simultaneously -- anger, sex, everything, is burning simultaneously. Every source is available.

Be concerned with from where anger is bubbling up, from where the sex desire has come in. Follow it,

take steps backwards. Meditate silently and go with anger to the roots. It is difficult but it is not impossible.
It is not easy. It is not going to be easy because it is a fight against a long, rooted habit. The whole past has
to be broken, and you have to do something new which you have never done before. It is just the weight of
sheer habit which will create the difficulty. But try it, and then you are creating a new direction for energy
to move. You are beginning to be a circle, and in a circle energy is never dissipated.

My energy comes up and moves outside -- it can never become a circle now; it is simply dissipated. If

my movement inwards is there, then the same energy which was going out turns upon itself. My meditation
leads this energy back to the same source from where the anger was coming. It becomes a circle. This inner
circle is the strength of a Mahavir. The sex energy, not moving to someone else, moves back to its own
source. This circle of sex energy is the strength of a Buddha.

We are weaklings, not because we have less energy than a Buddha: we have the same quanta of energy,

everyone is born with the same energy quanta, but we are accustomed to dissipating it. It simply moves
away from us and never comes back. It cannot come back! Once it is out of you, it can never come back -- it
is beyond you.

A word arises in me: I speak it out; it has flown away. It is not going to come back to me, and the energy

that was used in producing it, that was used in throwing it away, is dissipated. A word arises in me: I don't
throw it out; I remain silent. Then the word moves and moves and moves, and falls into the original source
again. The energy has been reconsumed.

Silence is energy. Brahmacharya is energy. Not to be angry is energy. But this is not suppression. If you

suppress anger, you have used energy again. Don't suppress -- observe and follow. don't fight -- just move
backwards with the anger. This is the purest method of awareness.

But certain other things can be used. For beginners certain devices are possible. So I will talk about

three devices. One type of device is based on body awareness. Forget anger, forget sex -- they are difficult
problems. And when you are in them, you become so mad that you cannot meditate. When you are angry
you cannot meditate; you cannot even think about meditation. You are just mad. So forget it; it is difficult.
Then use your own body as a device for awareness.

Buddha has said that when you walk, walk consciously. When you breathe, breathe consciously. The

Buddhist method is known as ANAPANASATI YOGA -- the yoga of the incoming and outgoing breath,
incoming and outgoing breath awareness. The breath comes in: move with the breath; know, be aware, that
the breath is moving in. When the breath has gone out again, move with it. Be in, be out, with the breath.

Anger is difficult, sex is difficult -- breath is not so difficult. Move with the breath. Don't allow any

breath to be in or out without consciousness. This is a meditation. Now you will be focused on breathing,
and when you are focused on breathing thoughts stop automatically. you cannot think, because the moment
you think your consciousness moves from breath to thought. you have missed breathing.

Try this and you will know. When you are aware of breathing, thoughts cease. The same energy which

is used for thoughts is being used in being aware of breath. If you start thinking, you will lose track of the
breath, you will forget, and you will think. You cannot do both simultaneously.

If you are following breathing, it is a long process. One has to go into it deeply. It takes a minimum of

three months and a maximum of three years. If it is done continuously twenty-four hours a day... it is a
method for monks, those who have given up everything; only they can watch their breathing twenty-four
hours a day. That's why Buddhist monks and other traditions of monks, they reduce their living to the
minimum so that no disturbance is there. They will beg for their food and they will sleep under a tree --
that's all. Their whole time is devoted to some inner practice of being aware -- mm? -- for example, of
breath.

A Buddhist monk moves. He has to be continuously aware of his breath. The silence that you see on a

Buddhist monk's face is the silence of the awareness of breathing and nothing else. If you become aware
your face will become silent, because if thoughts are not there your face cannot show anxiety, thinking.
Your face becomes relaxed. Continuous awareness of breathing will stop the mind. The continuously
troubled mind will stop. And if the mind stops and you are simply aware of breathing, if the mind is not
functioning, you cannot be angry, you cannot be sexual.

Sex or anger or greed or jealousy or envy -- anything needs the mechanism of mind. And if the

mechanism stops, you cannot do anything. This again leads to the same thing. Now the energy that is used
in sex, in anger, in greed, in ambition, has no outlet. And you go on continuously being concerned with
breathing, day and night. Buddha has said, "Even in sleep try to be aware of breathing." It will be difficult in
the beginning, but if you can be aware in the day, then by and by this will penetrate into your sleep.

Anything penetrates into sleep if it has gone deep in the mind in the day. If you have been worried about

a certain thing in the day, it gets into the sleep. If you were thinking continuously about sex, it gets into the
sleep. If you were angry the whole day, anger gets into the sleep. So Buddha says there is no difficulty. If a
person is continuously concerned with breathing and awareness of the breathing, ultimately it penetrates
into the sleep. You cannot dream then. If your awareness is there of incoming breath and outgoing breath,
then in sleep you cannot dream.

The moment you dream, this awareness will not be there. If awareness is there, dreams are impossible.

So a Buddhist monk asleep is not just like you. His sleep has a different quality. It has a different depth and
a certain awareness in it is there.

Ananda said to Buddha, "I have observed you for years and years together. It seems like a miracle: you

sleep as if you are awake. You are in the same posture the whole night." The hand would not move from the
place where it had been put; the leg would remain in the same posture. Buddha would sleep in the same
posture the whole night. Not a single movement! For nights tog3ether ananda would sit and watch and
wonder, "What type of sleep is this!" Buddha would not move. He would be as if a dead body, and he would
wake up in the same posture in which he went to sleep. Ananda asked, "What are you doing? Were you
asleep or not? You never move!"

Buddha said, "A day will come, Ananda, when you will know. This shows that you are not practising

anapanasati yoga rightly; it shows only this. Otherwise this question would not have arisen. You are not

practising anapanasati yoga -- if you are continuously aware of your breath in the day, it is impossible not to
be conscious of it in the night. And if the mind is concerned with awareness, dreams cannot penetrate. And
if there are no dreams, mind is clear, transparent. Your body is asleep, but you are not. Your body is
relaxing, you are aware -- the flame is there inside. So, Ananda," Buddha is reported to have said, "I am not
asleep -- only the body is sleep. I am aware! and not only in sleep. Ananda -- when I die, you will see: I will
be aware, only the body will die."

Practise awareness with breathing; then you will be capable of penetrating. Or practise awareness with

body movements. Buddha has a word for it: he calls it "mindfulness". He says, "Walk mindfully." We walk
without any mind in it.

A certain man was sitting before Buddha when he was talking one day. He was moving his leg and a toe

unnecessarily. There was no reason for it. Buddha stopped talking and asked that man, "Why are you
moving your leg? Why are you moving your toe?" Suddenly, as the Buddha asked, the man stopped. Then
Buddha asked, "Why have you stopped so suddenly?"

The man said, "Why, I was not even aware that I was moving my toe or my leg! I was not aware! The

moment you asked, I became aware."

Buddha said, "What nonsense! Your leg is moving and you are not aware? So what are you doing with

your body? Are you an alive man or dead? This is your leg, this is your toe, and it goes on moving and you
are not even aware? Then of what are you aware? You can kill a man and you can say, "I was not aware.'"
And, really, those who kill are not aware. It is difficult to kill someone when you are aware.

Buddha would say, "Move, walk, but be filled with consciousness. Know inwardly you are walking."

You are not to use any words; you are not to use any thoughts. You are not to say inside, "I am walking,"
because if you say it then you are not aware of walking -- you have become aware of your thought, and you
have missed walking. Just be somatically aware -- not mentally. Just feel that you are walking. Create a
somatic awareness, a sensitivity, so that you can feel directly without mind coming in.

The wind is blowing -- you are feeling it. Don't use words. Just feel, and be mindful of the feeling. You

are lying down on the beach, and the sand is cool, deeply cool. Feel it! -- don't use words. Just feel it -- the
coolness of it, the penetrating coolness of it. Just feel! Be conscious of it; don't use words. Don't say, "The
sand is very cool." The moment you say it you have missed an existential moment. You have become
intellectual about it.

You are with your lover or with your beloved: feel the presence; don't use words. Just feel the warmth,

the love flowing. Just feel the oneness that has happened. don't use words. don't say, "I love you," you will
have destroyed it. The mind has come in. And the moment you say, "I love you," it has become a past
memory. Just feel without words. Anything felt without words, felt totally without the mind coming in, will
give you a mindfulness.

You are eating: eat mindfully; taste everything mindfully. Don't use words. The taste is itself such a

great and penetrating thing. Don't use words and don't destroy it. Feel it to the core. You are drinking water:
feel it passing through the throat; don't use words. Just feel it; be mindful about it. The movement of the
water, the coolness, the disappearing thirst, the satisfaction that follows -- feel it!

You are sitting in the sun: feel the warmth; don't use words. The sun is touching you. There is a deep

communion. Feel it! In this way, somatic awareness, bodily awareness, is developed. If you develop a
bodily awareness, again mind comes to a stop. Mind is not needed. And if mind stops, you are again thrown
into the deep unconscious. With a very, very deep alertness you can penetrate, Now you have a light with
you, and the darkness disappears.

Those who are bodily oriented, for them it is good to be somatically mindful. For those who are not

bodily oriented it is better to be conscious of breathing. Those who feel it difficult, they can use some
artificial devices. For example, mantra -- mm? -- it is an artificial device for being aware. You use a mantra
such as "Ram-Ram-Ram" continuously. Inside you create a circle of "Ram-Ram-Ram" or "Aum" or "Allah"
or anything. Go on repeating it. But simple repetition is of no use. Side by side, be aware. when you are
chanting "Ram-Ram-Ram", be aware of the chanting. Listen to it -- "Ram-Ram-Ram" -- be aware.

It will be difficult to be aware of anger because anger comes suddenly and you cannot plan it. And when

it comes you are so overwhelmed that you may forget it. So create a device like "Ram-Ram-Ram". You can
create it, and it will not be a sudden method. And if used for a long time, it becomes an inner sound.
Whatsoever you are doing, there will be "Ram-Ram" as a silent sequence. Be aware of it. Then the mantra is
complete, the japa is complete, the chanting is complete, when you are not only the creator of the sound but
also the listener. It is not only that you are saying "Ram" -- you are also listening to it. The circle is

complete. I say something. You listen; the energy is dissipated. If you yourself say "Ram" and you yourself
listen to it, the energy comes back. You are the speaker, you are the listener.

But be aware of it. It should not become a dead routine. Otherwise you can go on saying

"Ram-Ram-Ram" just like a parrot, without any awareness behind it. Then it is of no use. It may create a
deep sleep even. It may become a hypnosis. You may become dull. Mm? -- Krishnamurti says that those
who chant mantras, they become dull, they become stupid. And he is right in a way, but only in a way. If
you use any chanting just as a mechanical repetition, you will become dull. Look at the so-called religious
people: they are just dull and stupid. No intelligence, no flame in their eyes of life, of aliveness. They just
look dead, like lead, heavy. They have not given anything to the world, they have not created anything.
They have just repeated mantras.

Of course, if you go on repeating a particular mantra without awareness, you will be bored by it

yourself, and boredom will create stupidity. You will become dull, you will lose interest. A certain sound
repeated continuously can even create madness. But Krishnamurti is right only in a sense; otherwise he is
completely totally wrong. And whenever one judges something by those who are not following it, really,
that judgement is not good. Anything must be judged by the perfect example.

The science of japa is not just to repeat. Repetition is secondary. It is just a device to create something

of which to be aware. The real thing is to be aware. The basic thing is to be aware. If you build a house, the
house is secondary. You build it to live in. And if there is no living, and you create a house and live outside,
then you are foolish.

Repetition of a certain name or sound is creating a house to live in. It is creating a certain milieu inside.

And if you have created it, you can manipulate it more easily than sudden happenings. And by and by you
can become accustomed to it, related to it in a deep consciousness -- but the real thing, the basic thing, is to
be conscious of it.

The science of japa says that when you become a hearer of your own sound, then you have reached.

Then you have completed the japa. And there is much in it. When you see a sound, for example, "Ram",
your peripheral apparatus is used in creating it, your vocal apparatus. Or it you create a mental sound, then
your mind is used to create it. But when you become alert about it, that alertness is of the center, not of the
periphery. If I say "Ram", this is on the periphery of my being. When I listen to this sound "Ram" inside,
that is from my center -- because awareness belongs to the center. If you become aware in the center, now
you have the light with you. you can dispel unconsciousness.

Mantra can be used as a technique; there are many, many methods. But any method is just an effort

towards awareness. You cannot escape awareness. You can start from wherever you like, but awareness is
the goal.

These are all methods of will. It would be better if I talk of at least one method of surrender, of the path

of surrender. These are all methods of will: you will have to do something.

Hui-Hai was a Zen Master. When he had come to his Teacher, the Teacher said, "Choose! Would you

like methods of will? Then I will suggest something to you. Or, are you ready to surrender? If you choose
the path of will, then you will have to do something. I can only be a guide."

On the path of will, there are only guides. There are not really Gurus, Masters. There are simply guides.

They instruct you; you have to do everything. They cannot do.

So the Teacher said, "If you want to proceed on the path of will, then I will be your guide. I will give

you instructions and techniques; then you will have to do everything. If you choose surrender, then you
have not to do anything. I will do it all. Then you have just to be a shadow to me, just follow me. Then no
doubts, no questioning; then no inquiry. Whatsoever I say you do."

Hui-Hai chose the path of surrender. He surrendered himself to his Teacher. Three yeas passed. He

would sit by his Teacher's side. Sometimes the Teacher would look at him and would go on looking at him,
continuously looking at him. The look was so penetrating and so deep that it would haunt Hui-Hai. When he
was not even with his Teacher, the look would follow him. He would sleep, but the eyes would be with him,
the Teacher would be looking at him. He couldn't even dream because the Teacher was there.

For three years continuously he would sit by his Teacher's side, and suddenly the Teacher would look at

him and penetrate, and his eyes would go deep. Those eyes became a part of his being. He could not be
angry, he could not be sexual -- those eyes would be present there. He would be haunted. The Guru was
there. He was always in his presence. Then after three years, the Guru, for the first time, laughed. He looked
at him and laughed, and then a new haunting began. Then he would hear the laughter. And even in sleep,
suddenly he would hear the laughter and he would begin to tremble. For the three years again, the Guru

would suddenly look at him and laugh, and that was all.

This continued for three years, that is for six years altogether. Then suddenly one day, after six years the

Guru touched his hand. He would look in his eyes, take his hand in his hands, and Hui-Hai would feel the
Guru's energy flowing in him. He became just a vehicle, a vessel. He would feel the warmth, the energy, the
electricity, everything flowing in him. It was impossible to sleep because the Teacher was there. And every
time, every moment, something was flowing.

Then, after another three years -- that is, after nine years altogether -- the Guru embraced him. And

Hui-Hai has written that with that day the haunting ceased. There was no Hui-Hai: there was only the
Teacher. That's why the haunting ceased.

Three more years passed -- that is, twelve years -- and one day the Teacher touched Hui-Hai's feet. That

day the Teacher also disappeared, but Hui-0Hai became an Enlightened man. many would ask him later on,
"How did you gain it?" He would say, "I cannot say. I only surrendered. Then everything was done by him,
and I do not know what happened!"

When you surrender yourself, you can surrender only the conscious mind, not the unconscious. You

don't know about it, so how can you surrender it? If I tell you to surrender your money, you can only
surrender that money which you know you have. How can you surrender that money that is hidden in a
treasure which you don't know that you have? So only the conscious part of the mind can be surrendered,
and the conscious mind is the barrier.

If I say something to you, the conscious mind begins to think whether it is right or wrong, true or false.

And even if it is true, it begins to wonder, "What is the purpose of this man saying it? What does he want
from me?" Many things, many questions, many doubts will come, and the conscious mind creates a
resistance.

If you know anything about hypnosis, then you must have come to know and feel that in hypnosis the

person who is hypnotized will do anything if ordered -- anything, any absurd thing. Why? In the hypnotic
state the conscious mind is asleep. Only the unconscious is there. The barrier has been broken. In hypnosis
your conscious mind has gone to sleep it is not there. So in hypnosis, if you are a man and I say, "You are a
woman," you will behave like a woman. You will walk like a woman; you will be shy; your movement will
become more graceful, more womanly; your voice will change.

What happens? The conscious mind which can create doubt -- which will say, "What nonsense you are

telling me! I am a man, not a woman" -- is asleep. And the unconscious has no doubts. The unconscious is
absolutely faithful. It has absolute faith, trust. There is no logic in the unconscious. It cannot resist, so
whatsoever is said is believed. There is no problem. That's why so much emphasis is placed on faith --
shraddha. Faith is of the path of surrender; it belongs to the path of surrender.

Whatsoever is said is believed on the path of surrender. It is day, and the Teacher says it is night --

believe it! Why? Because this believing will break the habit of questioning, resistance. Ultimately it will
destroy the so-called barrier of your conscious mind. And when the conscious mind is not there, the Teacher
and you become one. Then you can work -- not before that. Then it is a telepathic relationship. You are in a
deep communion. So whatsoever the Guru thinks becomes a part of you. Now, whatsoever he wants to do,
he can do it. You have become just totally receptive to him. Now there is not a fight between the Teacher
and the disciple; otherwise it is a fight. There is a communion, a deep meeting.

So Hui-Hai said, "I do not know. I simply surrendered; that is what I did. The only thing I did was this. I

said to myself that I have tried and I have struggled, and I have not found any bliss. It may be that I am the
cause of all my misery. If I choose the path of will, again I will be choosing, again I will be practising, again
I will be there. Whatsoever the result may be, I will be present in it. And if I am the misery -- and I have
tried everywhere and I have done everything -- it is better to drop myself and see what happens. So I told
my Teacher that I would surrender, and after that I simply waited for twelve years. I don't know what he
was doing, but many things were happening. I was transforming -- I was being transformed and changed."

Our unconscious minds are related. They are one. We are islands only as far as our conscious minds are

concerned. Otherwise we are not separate: the deeper mind is one. If I am talking to you, then there are two
ways to convey my message to you. One is through your conscious mind. It is a method of struggle because
your conscious mind will go on thinking about it. It cannot accept. First it has to negate.

The first thing the conscious mind says is "no", and "yes" comes only in a very faltering way. Yes

comes only as a helplessness. you cannot say no, you cannot find any way to say no, you are unable to say
no, you have no argument for saying no, so you say yes. your yes is impotent, weak, just out of
helplessness. The moment you find another reason to say no, you again feel to be vibrating with energy.

Your no is very potent. Yes is just dead; no is alive with the conscious mind.

The conscious mind is a conflict continuously -- defending, afraid, looking around with fear. It cannot

trust; it cannot say yes wholeheartedly. Even if it says it, it is always a temporary thing. It is waiting for the
real no to come, and then it will say it. So you can convince a man, but you cannot convert him. you can
argue with a man, you can silence him with argument, but you cannot convert him.

He may feel that he cannot say anything more, but inside, deep down, he knows that something must be

found somewhere, which will prove that you are wrong and he is right. It is only that at this moment he is
unable to say no, so he accepts. But this acceptance is not a conversion. It is just a temporary defeat, and he
feels hurt and he will take revenge. This is one way which has become prominent in this age. If you have to
convey something, you have to convey it through the conscious mind.

In ancient days, quite the contrary was the method. Drop this conscious mind and convey directly

through the unconscious. Time is saved, energy is saved and unnecessary struggle is saved. That's what is
meant by surrender. Surrender means now you say, "I am no one any more. Now, whatsoever you say I will
follow. I will not decide to follow again and again. Now there will be no question withe very decision. I
decide, finally, ultimately."

With the conscious mind you have to decide again and again every moment6. With the surrendering

mind, you have decided once, you have chosen, then you drop. And when you don't doubt, when you don't
question, then by and by the conscious mind loses its grip because it is a mechanical thing. If you don't use
it, it becomes non-functional. If you don't use your legs for twelve years, they will become non-functional.
Then you won't be able to walk.

So Hui-Hai continuously waited in a surrendering mood for twelve years. He could not think, he could

not argue, he could not say no. Yes became the mood, yes became potent, yes became strong, alive. No was
just not there. In this state direct transformation is possible. Then the Teacher can do much. Then he
penetrates into you. Then he begins to transform you. And the more you are transformed form inside, the
more conscious you become, but that is not your work.

In Indonesia there is now a modern method: they call it LATIHAN (from subud methods). It works

miraculously. One has not even to surrender to the Teacher -- one simply surrenders to the Divine. But the
surrender must be total. One surrenders to the Divine and says to the Divine, "Now, finally, I say
whatsoever you want to do with me, do! I will not resist. Now, whatsoever happens I will follow it as if it is
your instructions." And if a man begins to feel trembling, he trembles. If he begins to feel screaming, he
screams. If he feels to run, he runs. He begins to behave in mad ways. But no resistance must be there.
Whatsoever happens, he accepts it and flows with it, and within days he is a transformed being, a different
being.

When you are totally receptive to the universal, the cosmic force, it transforms you. Then you need not

transform yourself. Then you are carried in a very strong current. If you are not fighting, you are just
carried. The Cosmic is present here, but you resist. You stand against it. Everyone is fighting against the
Cosmic. Everyone feels himself more wise.

Leave it to the Cosmic. Surrender to the Cosmic, or surrender to the Teacher -- it makes no difference.

The real thing is surrender. But it is a very mad path -- a very mad path -- because what will happen is
unpredictable. It may happen, it may not happen. You cannot know beforehand. You proceed in an
unknown, uncharted sea, and you are not the master. You have surrendered. This surrendering breaks down
your resistance, your ego. And when the surrendering is complete, there is light, there is awareness, there is
flowering. You have flowered suddenly.

So when I say there is a possibility of surrendering, sometimes it looks as if it will be easy -- as if the

path of will must be arduous and the path of surrender must be easy. It is not so. To some the path of will is
easy, to some the path of surrender is easy. It depends on you; it does not depend on the path. No path is
easy, no path is difficult. It depends on you! If the path suits you, it is easy.

Hui-Hai was not doing anything, so it was easy in a way. But you know what he did? He surrendered. It

was done in a single moment. But can you do it, this waiting for twelve years? Distrust and many things will
come in. Someone will say, "Why are you wasting time with this man? He is a fraud. he has deceived many.
many have come and gone. What you are doing here?"

Hui-Hai would listen and would not react. And this is not the end: the Teacher would even create many,

many things which would bring doubt. Suddenly Hui-Hai would think, "What am I doing here? Am I mad
with this man? And what is he doing? If he just proves to be a fraud after twelve years, then my life is
wasted." And this man, this Teacher, would create many situations in which doubt would arise, and the

mind would begin to function. But Hui-Hai would not listen to the mind. He would say, "I have surrendered.
I have surrendered and now there is no going back." It is not easy. Nothing is easy, but things become more
difficult if you choose wrongly.

And lastly, I would like to say that it is natural that we always choose wrongly. There is a reason for it.

Because the opposite is always attractive, it is natural that we choose wrongly. All choice is basically sexual
-- so a man chooses a woman, a woman chooses a man, and the same goes on and on in every dimension. If
you are a man of surrender, it is more possible that you will choose the path of will because will will be
more attractive: it is the opposite. If you are a man of will, you may choose the path of surrender because
the other, the opposite, is more attractive. It happens in many ways.

Mahavir is a man of will, but his followers, his authentic followers, will be men of surrender because he

will attract the opposite. He is a man of will but he will attract those who are men of surrender. So if
followers decide by themselves they will begin to follow Mahavir's ways, and this will be a wrong thing
because Mahavir is a man of will and his path is the path of will. If they just begin to follow whatsoever
Mahavir is doing, they will be wrong and ultimately frustrated. If they leave it to Mahavir, then Mahavir
will always suggest to them the path of surrender. This is the problem.

So when the Teacher is dead and a long time has passed, it becomes a deep cause of confusion for the

followers -- because now the Teacher cannot decide: you have to decide. So someone becomes attracted to
Buddha and he begins to follow Buddha's path as Buddha did. This is going to be wrong. If Buddha could
have been asked, he would have suggested a different thing.

The last dying words of Buddha to Ananda are, "Ananda, be a lamp unto yourself. Don't follow me:

appa DEEPO BHAVA -- Be a lamp unto yourself! Don't follow me." Ananda was following Buddha
continuously for forty years. It was not a small period. For his whole life Ananda had followed devotedly,
and no one could say that his devotion was imperfect in any way or incomplete. It was total. But Ananda,
the most devoted follower, could not achieve Enlightenment, and the death of Buddha was nearing.

One day Buddha said, "Now, today I am going to leave this body."
So Ananda began to weep and said, "What will I do now? For forty years I have been following you in

every single detail."

Even Buddha could not say, "You have not followed and that's why you have not reached." He had

followed and he was sincere, but he was still an ignorant man.

Buddha said, "Unless I die, Ananda, it seems you will not reach."

"Why?" Ananda asked.

Buddha said, "Unless I die, you cannot return to yourself. You are too much attached to me, and I have

become the barrier. You have followed me, but you have forgotten yourself completely."

You can follow a Teacher blindly and still reach nowhere -- if you are just following the Teacher

according to you. Remember these words: "according to you." Then you have not surrendered. Surrender
means now you are no more there to decide. The Teacher decides. Even if the Teacher is not there,
surrender to the cosmic energy. Then the cosmic energy decides. The moment you surrender, your gates are
thrown open and the cosmic flood enters you from everywhere and transforms you.

Look at it this way: my house is filled with darkness. I can do two things. Either I have to create light in

my house -- then I will have to create it; or, I can open my doors and the sun is outside. I just open my
doors, and my house becomes a host to the Divine guest, to the sun, to the rays. Then I become receptive
and the darkness disappears.

On the path of will, you have to create the light. On the path of surrender, light is there -- you have just

to be open. But when the house is dark and when everywhere there is darkness, one fears to open doors --
one fears even more. who knows whether light will enter or whether thieves will come in? So you lock up.
You close every possibility so that nothing enters in. That is the situation.

Either create light by yourself: then the darkness disappears. Or, use the cosmic light: that is always

there. Then open yourself! Be vulnerable! Then don't depend on anyone. Then be ready, whatsoever
happens. If you are ready no matter what may happen, then darkness itself becomes light. With that
readiness, nothing can remain dark. That very readiness transforms you totally.

OSHO, LAST NIGHT YOU MENTIONED THE CASE OF A MAN WHO SAW VISIONS OF KRISHNA AND
THOUGHT HE WAS ADVANCED, WHILE YOU SAID HE HAD NOT YET TAKEN THE FIRST STEP.
HOW DOES ONE KNOW HOW FAR ALONG ONE IS? ARE NOT VISIONS AND OTHER PSYCHIC

PHENOMENA SUPPOSED TO BE INDICATIONS OF HIGH SPIRITUAL DEVELOPMENT? IF NOT, THEN
WHAT ARE SOME OF THE INDICATIONS?

There can be visions, and they can be indicative of advanced states. But with one condition: the more

advanced you are, the less you feel that you are advanced. The more you move towards being Enlightened,
the less there is the ego which says, "I am enlightened." Spiritual advancement is a very humble progress.

So one thing: visions can be indicative of higher states, but only if you feel more humble. If you begin to

feel that you are advanced, that shows another thing: that those visions are not spiritual but simply
projections of the mind. So this is the criterion. If you have really seen Krishna in visions, you will be no
more if this is authentic. If really this is a realization, you will be effaced completely. You will say,
"Krishna is and I am not."

But if you are strengthened by this vision, you are not effaced. If, on the contrary, you become stronger

and now you say, "I am an adept, an advanced soul -- I am no ordinary man," that shows that it was not an
authentic vision but only a projection of the ego.

The ego is strengthened by its own projections. Otherwise, it is destroyed. A spiritual vision destroys the

ego completely. A projected vision, your own imagination, your own dream, strengthens you. It becomes a
food; your ego is more vitalized.

The Upanishads say, "Those who say they know, they know not. Those who claim that they have

realized, they are far from it." So when I said that a certain man came to me and said, "I am a very advanced
soul, I am an adept. I have this vision and that," when he related his vision it was as if someone was relating
his riches or degrees, his academic degrees, as if someone was carrying his diplomas.

This is impossible. His visions were just created visions, created with his own mind. If your mind is

creating your visions, your mind will be strengthened. If visions are coming from beyond, your mind will be
destroyed. The visions are not of the same sort.

But in the beginning you cannot decide this difference in the visions. You cannot decide whether you

have really seen Krishna or whether it was just your dream. you cannot make out any difference -- because
if you have seen the real, you will not see the dream; if you have seen the dream, you will not see the real.
So how can you compare? You cannot compare. But one thing is certain: you will show what type of thing
you have seen. If this vision strengthens your ego, then it was a projection. If it effaces you completely,
destroys you completely and you are no more, then it was authentic and real. Only this is the criterion.

So with a religious person, if he becomes more egoistic as he advances in his religiousness, it shows that

he is on a false path -- he is imagining things. And if the more he advances, the more he withers away, feels
himself no more, if he feels to be a non-entity and ultimately a nothingness, if he becomes just a void, that
shows that he is progressing.

Visions can show, but they always show something only in reference to you, not independently. If you

ask whether a vision of Krishna is real or not, I cannot say anything. I will ask, "Real to whom?" To Meera
it was real: it effaced her completely; she was no more. Someone was asking me, "When Meera w2as
poisoned, why did the poison not affect her?" I said to him, "Because she was no more."

Even poison needs someone to be effective. It killed socrates -- Socrates was not Meera. Socrates was a

philosopher, not a sage; Socrates was a thinker, not a Buddha. Socrates thought, contemplated, argued. He
was a great intellect, but not an enlightened One. If he should argue with Buddha he would win; Buddha
would be defeated. He was a rare genius. So when you think about socrates, intellectually he is
incomparable, but existentially he is nothing before a Buddha. A Buddha will laugh about this arguments
and a Buddha will say, "You go around and around, and you will never reach the center. And whatsoever
you are talking is just talk. You argue. you are a logical man and you argue better than me," a Buddha will
say, "but you are wasting your life in arguments."

Socrates is not a person who has gone beyond his ego. He is a rare man with a rare, penetrating mind.

Even if he talks about ego, that understanding is intellectual. He is not an existential, experienced man. So
because of Socrates, the whole West has come to an intellectual climax -- because of three men: Socrates,
Plato and Aristotle. The originator is Socrates. Socrates was the teacher of Plato and Plato was the teacher4
of Aristotle. These three have created the whole Western mind. This whole science, logic, philosophy of the
West, belongs to these three men. They are the creators.

Buddha belongs to a totally different dimension. Socrates is an intellectual giant, but Buddha would

have just laughed at him. He would have said, "You are a giant amidst children. You have reached a climax
in intellect, but intellect is a barrier. You have touched the ultimate in intellect, but intellect leads nowhere."

Socrates is different, Meera is different. Meera is a surrendered soul -- totally surrendered, totally

effaced. When the poison is given to her, she is not drinking it. Krishna himself is drinking it. There is no
difference now, no distinction. And if this trust is there, poison will become useless. This seems miraculous,
but it is not so miraculous. In hypnosis, if a deeply hypnotized person is there and you give him poison
telling him that this is not poison, it will not affect him. What happens? If you give him ordinary water and
say, "This is poison," he will die. This is total acceptance. Even in hypnosis this can happen.

In 1952 they had to make a law in America -- an anti-hypnosis law. you cannot hypnotize anybody now

in America. It is illegal, because one student died in a university. Four students were hypnotizing him. They
were just students of psychology, so they stumbled upon books on hypnotism. They just tried it as a game.
They hypnotized one boy -- their partner -- in a room, and they suggested many things and he followed
them. They said, "Weep! Your mother is dead!" and he wept. They said, "Laugh and dance! Your mother
has arisen again!" and he laughed and danced. And then one boy said, with no ulterior motive, "You are
dead." and the boy fell down dead. Then they tried in every way to tell him, "Now awaken! Now you are
alive!" But then there was no one to listen. He was already dead.

This is total acceptance, and they had to make a law against hypnosis because of it. Only a practitioner

-- a psychologist6, a psychiatrist, or someone who is doing research, a doctor -- only these can now practise
hypnosis.

If in hypnosis this can happen, why not with a Meera? A Meera has surrendered her conscious mind --

the same which is surrendered in hypnosis. She has surrendered it totally. now she is no more; only Krishna
is. If there is not a single doubt when she is taking the poison and her hands are not trembling, if she is not
thinking that "This is poison and I may die," if even this thought is not there, she will not die. She takes it as
a gift from her beloved, from her Krishna. That is also a gift. Everything is from him, so she takes it as a
gift. She drinks it, feels good, begins to dance. The poison has disappeared.

Even to work, the poison needs your mind. If there is no mind, it is very difficult for it to have any

effect. A Meera can escape; Socrates cannot escape. He was a logical man. He knows that poison will kill
him. Meera was illogical -- absolutely illogical.

I will relate to you the death scene of socrates. The poison is being made outside. Socrates is lying on

his bed and his disciples are there. He says to one disciple, "Now it is time. At six the poison must be
given." He is a very mathematical man, so he says, "It seems they have not prepared it yet. Go and ask them
why it is so late. The time has come and I am ready."

Then the poison comes. He takes the poison. Then he says, "My legs are feeling numb. It seems the

poison has begun to work. Now the poison is coming up." He goes on relating. He is a keen intellect. Even
in death he is experimenting./ He is a scientific thinker. He says, "Now the poison is coming up. Now half
of my body is dead." He is a rare man. He is not ordinary.

The disciples are weeping, so he says, "Stop! You can weep later on. Look at this phenomenon, this

progressing poisoning. Soon. I think, my heart will be affected. And I wonder if, after my heart is affected,
my mind will work. So now it will be decided whether the heart is the main center or the mind." He is a
very keen mind, and he is observing, relating.

When his heart is affected, he says, "I feel that my heart is sinking, going down. Soon I think I will feel,

but I will not be able to relate anything because my tongue is getting numb, dead. Friends, now there will be
an experience which I will be able to experience but which I will not be able to relate. It will be
inexpressible because my tongue is going dead."

Even up to the last, his eyes were saying something, relating something. In the last moment someone

asks him, "Socrates are you not afraid of death?" He doesn't say, "I am not afraid because I am immortal" --
no! He doesn't say, "I am not afraid because I am going to meet the Divine" -- no! He doesn't know any
Divine and his mind cannot believe in any Divine.

He says, "I am not afraid for two reasons." This is a logical mind. He says, "For two reasons I am not

afraid. One: either Socrates is going to die completely; then there will be no one to be afraid. Or, Socrates is
not going to die at all and the soul will live, so why be afraid? These are the two reasons why I am not
afraid. Either I will die, really, as atheists say. Materialists say that there is no soul, and they may be right. If
they are right, then why be afraid? I will be dead completely, and no one will be there to suffer death, no
one will be there to be afraid of anything. Socrates will be no more, so why be afraid?

"Or, it may be that religious persons are right" -- this is the "or"; this is logic -- "they may be right! Then

only the body will die and Socrates will live, so why be afraid? If only my body is going to die and I will be
there, why waste time in fear? Let me go and see."

But he is not in an experience of what is going to happen. He is a perfectly logical mind. His

fearlessness is not that of a Buddha or that of a Mahavir or that of a Meera or even that of a Charvak. His
fearlessness is not like that of a Charvak because Charvak said, "It is decidedly so that I am going to die
totally, so I am not afraid." this is a decisive conclusion. A Mahavir knows, "I am not going to die, so there
is no question of fear." But this again is a decision, a concluded thing. Mahavir knows.

Socrates is different from both. He says that either a Charvak will be true or a Mahavir will be true. But

whether one is true or the other is true, in both the cases it seems meaningless to be afraid. So he is a very
different mind, and he has created the very quality of Western thinking. He was not religious. He was down
to earth, scientific.